Reader comments
Readers' forum: Science needs the 'what ifs'
91 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
answer the question... | 3:48 p.m. May 5, 2008
"Ryan" won't give a definitive answer, because he can't.
It's simple: design a test for the hypotheses of ID. That's it! Do
that, and it's science. But he can't, obviously.
The most amazing thing? His claim (@ 1:32) that ID is not religious. NOT RELIGIOUS?! It is no longer worth anyone's time to discuss this issue with this Ryan person, because he is clearly incapable of seeing an obvious truth. Don't patronize the people by making a claim that ID is not religion. Please...get real. Say something real, say something solid, something quantifiable. Don't just keep asking questions to others. That's a sign that there is nothing behind your position.
Just so there's no confusion, this is the question: How do you test the theory of ID?
The most amazing thing? His claim (@ 1:32) that ID is not religious. NOT RELIGIOUS?! It is no longer worth anyone's time to discuss this issue with this Ryan person, because he is clearly incapable of seeing an obvious truth. Don't patronize the people by making a claim that ID is not religion. Please...get real. Say something real, say something solid, something quantifiable. Don't just keep asking questions to others. That's a sign that there is nothing behind your position.
Just so there's no confusion, this is the question: How do you test the theory of ID?
Timj | 3:58 p.m. May 5, 2008
Lots for Ryan to do once he gets back. Which I hope he does, because I'd
really like my questions answered. I'll check back (just once) later
tonight.
Comments continue below
2 "GWB | 12:34 " | 3:57 p.m. May 5, 2008
You may know how to make a cell turn into a brain cell but I don't think
you've made a complete functioning brain, with interfaces to the rest of
the body that work.
There's still a lot we don't understand or can't do(even though we are super-smart scientist).
This observation doesn't have anything to do with ID. Just thought you should know, you're not God yet.
There's still a lot we don't understand or can't do(even though we are super-smart scientist).
This observation doesn't have anything to do with ID. Just thought you should know, you're not God yet.
Science and Religion need humili | 4:33 p.m. May 5, 2008
Science needs to be open, just as religion needs to be open. Religions are
famous for thinking they have a monopoly on truth that later on needs to be
ammended because their once cherished beliefs are proved false.
If life was created randomly, it is logical to ask why we can't create it in a test tube. It is logical to ask why the fossel record shows great destructions of life and then all of the sudden it shows plenty of life. This sounds like seeding to me, not randomness that created life on our planet.
Scientists need to be humble, just as religious leaders have been forced to be humble.
If life was created randomly, it is logical to ask why we can't create it in a test tube. It is logical to ask why the fossel record shows great destructions of life and then all of the sudden it shows plenty of life. This sounds like seeding to me, not randomness that created life on our planet.
Scientists need to be humble, just as religious leaders have been forced to be humble.
Anonymous | 4:38 p.m. May 5, 2008
Why don't we bring the discussion back the original question and
that's: what if?
Science is about asking questions, not denying paths of inquiry. But creating as many paths of inquiry as needed in order to find the correct one.
The biggest problem with evolution (and there are many):
is it is improbable, even by it's own math, it is vastly ovewhelming more likely it didn't happen.
it is not scientific, it's all based on assumptions supposition, which's NOT scientific in language or deed. It supposes that this happen or that happened or it's assumed some "convenient" branch was created, or it supposes something separated. so many things are assumed or supposed out of convenience just to MAKE it work.
And worse yet none this actually requires any real science. for scientist to just claim seems sufficient.
Many claims evidence exist beacuse they heard in school, or read it a book, or saw a pretty chart.
I have asked many times for actually hard scientific evidence in these forums and have never been give any.
Don't give me supposed separation or branching, don't give me supposed relationship to old bones,
Also The bible doesn't say how old the universe is.
Science is about asking questions, not denying paths of inquiry. But creating as many paths of inquiry as needed in order to find the correct one.
The biggest problem with evolution (and there are many):
is it is improbable, even by it's own math, it is vastly ovewhelming more likely it didn't happen.
it is not scientific, it's all based on assumptions supposition, which's NOT scientific in language or deed. It supposes that this happen or that happened or it's assumed some "convenient" branch was created, or it supposes something separated. so many things are assumed or supposed out of convenience just to MAKE it work.
And worse yet none this actually requires any real science. for scientist to just claim seems sufficient.
Many claims evidence exist beacuse they heard in school, or read it a book, or saw a pretty chart.
I have asked many times for actually hard scientific evidence in these forums and have never been give any.
Don't give me supposed separation or branching, don't give me supposed relationship to old bones,
Also The bible doesn't say how old the universe is.
Timj | 5:59 p.m. May 5, 2008
Anon 4:38...(assuming you'll check back):
Evidence for evolution? To understand how evolution works, you need to understand basic biology.
You need to understand that tiny mutations in the DNA happen all the time. The environment around living things changes. If a tiny mutation helps an organism survive better in its environment, there's a chance that that mutation can be passed on to future generations. That's evolution.
Creationists will say, "that's microevolution. We accept that. It's the big stuff we don't accept." But guess what you get when you put lots of microevolutions together?
Evidence is found in many places. We compare fossils, anatomy, and behavior in animals. In the past few decades, however, anti-evolutionists had a chance to prove evolution wrong. We learned how to read DNA.
Guess what? The information in the DNA matched (with a few exceptions) what biologists have been saying for a long time. The information fits very well into the evolution framework. The DNA of a marsupial mouse and a regular mouse are quite different from one another, even though those two animals look and act in similar ways. But the DNA of birds and crocodiles is closer than the casual observer would think.
Evidence for evolution? To understand how evolution works, you need to understand basic biology.
You need to understand that tiny mutations in the DNA happen all the time. The environment around living things changes. If a tiny mutation helps an organism survive better in its environment, there's a chance that that mutation can be passed on to future generations. That's evolution.
Creationists will say, "that's microevolution. We accept that. It's the big stuff we don't accept." But guess what you get when you put lots of microevolutions together?
Evidence is found in many places. We compare fossils, anatomy, and behavior in animals. In the past few decades, however, anti-evolutionists had a chance to prove evolution wrong. We learned how to read DNA.
Guess what? The information in the DNA matched (with a few exceptions) what biologists have been saying for a long time. The information fits very well into the evolution framework. The DNA of a marsupial mouse and a regular mouse are quite different from one another, even though those two animals look and act in similar ways. But the DNA of birds and crocodiles is closer than the casual observer would think.
fr1nk | 6:15 p.m. May 5, 2008
to Anonymous4:38:
Go to the natural history museum. They will show you many examples of evolution. Ever wonder why you have to get a new flu vaccine every year? EVOLUTION!!
You claim "The biggest problem with evolution (and there are many)is it is improbable, even by it's own math, it is vastly overwhelming (I corrected your spelling error) more likely it didn't happen." What do you base this statement on? Can you back it up?
And EVEN THOUGH the bible doesnt say so, the universe is >13500000000 years old (that is greater than 13.5 billion years).
Go to the natural history museum. They will show you many examples of evolution. Ever wonder why you have to get a new flu vaccine every year? EVOLUTION!!
You claim "The biggest problem with evolution (and there are many)is it is improbable, even by it's own math, it is vastly overwhelming (I corrected your spelling error) more likely it didn't happen." What do you base this statement on? Can you back it up?
And EVEN THOUGH the bible doesnt say so, the universe is >13500000000 years old (that is greater than 13.5 billion years).
Anonymous | 7:10 p.m. May 5, 2008
I understand how it works in "theory"
And a flu virus is still a flu virus it has never changed into something else.
I can look at the fossil record but any relationship MUST be assumed.
You must assume life suddenly out of non life
You must assume all these micro changes took place
You must assume that they added to up a major change
You must assume there have been many major changes.
You must assume bones are related to us to fit a made up evolution chart.
You must assume the what doesn't fit must be in dead branch
You must assume all because you can't prove it in a lab.
You can only go back so far with dna because it becomes unviable.
There is a difference between similarity and relationship. especially genetically. DNA and genes tell you what feature a creature has, but to declare relationship you must assume it.
So why not assume they were designed similar?
Anyone can suppose a relationship any one can suppose anything happened.
science must suppose to make it fit.
When you find a cabin in the woods you don't suppose it happened naturally, you suppose a man built it.
And a flu virus is still a flu virus it has never changed into something else.
I can look at the fossil record but any relationship MUST be assumed.
You must assume life suddenly out of non life
You must assume all these micro changes took place
You must assume that they added to up a major change
You must assume there have been many major changes.
You must assume bones are related to us to fit a made up evolution chart.
You must assume the what doesn't fit must be in dead branch
You must assume all because you can't prove it in a lab.
You can only go back so far with dna because it becomes unviable.
There is a difference between similarity and relationship. especially genetically. DNA and genes tell you what feature a creature has, but to declare relationship you must assume it.
So why not assume they were designed similar?
Anyone can suppose a relationship any one can suppose anything happened.
science must suppose to make it fit.
When you find a cabin in the woods you don't suppose it happened naturally, you suppose a man built it.
Timj | 7:34 p.m. May 5, 2008
Anon 7:10:
Are you saying that paternity tests are useless? We use DNA to test relationships between humans. Of course, we must be assuming a lot of this.
We use it on rape victims to figure out who the rapist is. Again, a lot of innocent men must be in jail because, of course, we're just assuming that the DNA is theirs. When we find out how old a tree is, we're just assuming that it grows one ring each year. Therefore, our estimates must be wildly off.
Anon, please go learn a little bit about biology. Take an introductory biology course at a university. It's clear that you won't change your mind based on the discussion here, but if you want people to take your opinions seriously, you need to know a little more about the argument.
By the way, we get a lot of evidence of evolution from lab work. And, contrary to what you may believe, it's actually possible to do good science outside of a lab. If science were constrained to a lab, we would know next to nothing about (for example) our solar system.
Are you saying that paternity tests are useless? We use DNA to test relationships between humans. Of course, we must be assuming a lot of this.
We use it on rape victims to figure out who the rapist is. Again, a lot of innocent men must be in jail because, of course, we're just assuming that the DNA is theirs. When we find out how old a tree is, we're just assuming that it grows one ring each year. Therefore, our estimates must be wildly off.
Anon, please go learn a little bit about biology. Take an introductory biology course at a university. It's clear that you won't change your mind based on the discussion here, but if you want people to take your opinions seriously, you need to know a little more about the argument.
By the way, we get a lot of evidence of evolution from lab work. And, contrary to what you may believe, it's actually possible to do good science outside of a lab. If science were constrained to a lab, we would know next to nothing about (for example) our solar system.
fr1nk | 7:57 p.m. May 5, 2008
To Anonymous7:10p.m
You are right. We look at bones and make assumptions. We watch a virus change and assume that it is due to genetic variation. I cannot now prove evolution in a lab, but someday someone else may. We do look at things and see similarities and make connections, predictions, and charts.
On the other hand, YOU assume that:
A super man in the sky put us here to test our love for him.
He only created one man and one woman who had 2 boys and then somehow the rest of humanity.
He created the planet 6000 years ago but put all kinds of fake fossils to trick us into not believing in him, and once flooded the entire world without enough water.
You deny science all because of a group of books put together 1500 years ago. You are right. Science makes assumptions.
You are right. We look at bones and make assumptions. We watch a virus change and assume that it is due to genetic variation. I cannot now prove evolution in a lab, but someday someone else may. We do look at things and see similarities and make connections, predictions, and charts.
On the other hand, YOU assume that:
A super man in the sky put us here to test our love for him.
He only created one man and one woman who had 2 boys and then somehow the rest of humanity.
He created the planet 6000 years ago but put all kinds of fake fossils to trick us into not believing in him, and once flooded the entire world without enough water.
You deny science all because of a group of books put together 1500 years ago. You are right. Science makes assumptions.
Anonymous | 8:00 p.m. May 5, 2008
"Could it be that those of weak faith would lose their faith if a scientist
can control life in a manner that should only be the province of God?"
This is a complete tangent to the main point of the original post, but this comment made me consider something, and that is, if we are capable of coming so close to being able to manipulate life in a manner heretofore solely believed to be the domain of God, is it not possible, in an never-ending and ever expanding universe, billions of years old, and also being among one of a multitude of possible dimensions that we are learning most probably exist, is it not at least infinitesimally possible that there are in existance some beings more intelligent and powerful than we are that have discovered the secrets of life and creation? It would be pretty arrogant to think that we are the epitome of power and intelligence that the universe is capable of producing.
This is a complete tangent to the main point of the original post, but this comment made me consider something, and that is, if we are capable of coming so close to being able to manipulate life in a manner heretofore solely believed to be the domain of God, is it not possible, in an never-ending and ever expanding universe, billions of years old, and also being among one of a multitude of possible dimensions that we are learning most probably exist, is it not at least infinitesimally possible that there are in existance some beings more intelligent and powerful than we are that have discovered the secrets of life and creation? It would be pretty arrogant to think that we are the epitome of power and intelligence that the universe is capable of producing.
Ryan | 8:03 p.m. May 5, 2008
Mark,
You wrote: "Ryan, you want a discussion of the "nitty gritty" of evolution?"
No, just the mechanism. Of course, evolution is relevant as well.
You wrote: "The "anti-id crowd" as you call them include well educated people that study the actual evidence."
You are appealing to credentials? What brought you to that low point?
You wrote: "And science, of course, will accept evidence that is presented by id proponents. But the burden is on those proponents to gather and present evidence."
Mike Behe submitted a paper about the inability of gene duplication alone to account for a certain system. In the paper, Behe did not mention intelligent design. He received back a lengthy rejection letter attacking - not the argument in the paper - but intelligent design.
You wrote: "That most nonsensical of a movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" generating this current tantrum by id proponents is full of mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, spin, and outright lies, but, also, like your post, no substance."
Why not give an example of something you feel was dishonest in the movie and we can discuss it?
You wrote: "Ryan, you want a discussion of the "nitty gritty" of evolution?"
No, just the mechanism. Of course, evolution is relevant as well.
You wrote: "The "anti-id crowd" as you call them include well educated people that study the actual evidence."
You are appealing to credentials? What brought you to that low point?
You wrote: "And science, of course, will accept evidence that is presented by id proponents. But the burden is on those proponents to gather and present evidence."
Mike Behe submitted a paper about the inability of gene duplication alone to account for a certain system. In the paper, Behe did not mention intelligent design. He received back a lengthy rejection letter attacking - not the argument in the paper - but intelligent design.
You wrote: "That most nonsensical of a movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" generating this current tantrum by id proponents is full of mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, spin, and outright lies, but, also, like your post, no substance."
Why not give an example of something you feel was dishonest in the movie and we can discuss it?
Anonymous | 8:20 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj, clearly you misunderstand what I am staying.
For theose dna test to work you MUST have
the dna of both the parent and the child.
But even then such is the Jefferson case you can only tell it came from a jefferson male and notr who sspcifically.
But we have no DNA from fosillized creatures and what dna you get that was trapped in amber can only tell genetic inforamntion about that creature and NOT realtionships because e dont have it;s parent or child dna.
Hence sience can only assume relationships based on similar features, which may be completely wrong.
Science soe this especially in biology to classify and organize data.
But here relationship is assumed based purely on similarity.
But the question is whatt if?
What if the "evidence" fits other theories?
Then shouldn'y they be considered just as valid? or possibly more valid?
For instance long ago it was assumed that the earth was the center of the universe and from observed scientific data it appeared so the sun went around, the stars went around.
However it was proved wrong.
What is science afraid of? Competing theories make work just as well if not better.
What if?
For theose dna test to work you MUST have
the dna of both the parent and the child.
But even then such is the Jefferson case you can only tell it came from a jefferson male and notr who sspcifically.
But we have no DNA from fosillized creatures and what dna you get that was trapped in amber can only tell genetic inforamntion about that creature and NOT realtionships because e dont have it;s parent or child dna.
Hence sience can only assume relationships based on similar features, which may be completely wrong.
Science soe this especially in biology to classify and organize data.
But here relationship is assumed based purely on similarity.
But the question is whatt if?
What if the "evidence" fits other theories?
Then shouldn'y they be considered just as valid? or possibly more valid?
For instance long ago it was assumed that the earth was the center of the universe and from observed scientific data it appeared so the sun went around, the stars went around.
However it was proved wrong.
What is science afraid of? Competing theories make work just as well if not better.
What if?
fr1nk | 8:30 p.m. May 5, 2008
What if planes really cant fly?
Come up with competing theories, ID isnt one of them. It cant compete because it isnt even a hypothesis.
Come up with competing theories, ID isnt one of them. It cant compete because it isnt even a hypothesis.
Ryan | 8:42 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I went and saw iron man with some friends (it's way cool, btw).
You wrote: "It's random much like, say, snowflake formation is random and unplanned."
I asked two questions. "Perhaps you can tell me how anyone can know that variation is unplanned and unguided? Do you think it is a scientific claim?"
Will you answer these questions?
You wrote: "Could God plan out the exact structure of each individual snowflake? Certainly. Did he? Science can't really say yes or no."
Claiming "unplanned" is a pretty clear "no," to the "did God plan" question don't you think?
You wrote: "if we want to understand how snowflakes (very complex structures, by the way) are formed, we look for the scientific evidence behind it."
Science is inductive not deductive. Evidence that Sally helped bake cookies is not evidence that Billy did not help. You can say there is no evidence that Billy helped, but you can't say Billy didn't help.
You wrote: "We understand (like biologists understand) that snowflake formation is unguided and unplanned."
I didn't ask what you "understand," I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science, let alone proof for a negative.
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I went and saw iron man with some friends (it's way cool, btw).
You wrote: "It's random much like, say, snowflake formation is random and unplanned."
I asked two questions. "Perhaps you can tell me how anyone can know that variation is unplanned and unguided? Do you think it is a scientific claim?"
Will you answer these questions?
You wrote: "Could God plan out the exact structure of each individual snowflake? Certainly. Did he? Science can't really say yes or no."
Claiming "unplanned" is a pretty clear "no," to the "did God plan" question don't you think?
You wrote: "if we want to understand how snowflakes (very complex structures, by the way) are formed, we look for the scientific evidence behind it."
Science is inductive not deductive. Evidence that Sally helped bake cookies is not evidence that Billy did not help. You can say there is no evidence that Billy helped, but you can't say Billy didn't help.
You wrote: "We understand (like biologists understand) that snowflake formation is unguided and unplanned."
I didn't ask what you "understand," I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science, let alone proof for a negative.
Timj | 8:43 p.m. May 5, 2008
Anon,
Science welcomes competing theories. Unfortunately, as you clearly do not understand science, you do not understand that ID is not a competing theory.
A theory, in science, requires evidence. A lot of it. A scripture I like speaks of milk and meat. You want the meat right now...but you would be unable to understand/digest it. You need to start learning about the basics of science...so that you know what a theory is, etc., and so that you can understand, eventually, evolution.
We look at similarities in DNA and we can tell relationships from them. This includes close family relationships as well as much more distant species relationships. It's pretty much the same thing. Similar DNA indicates a similar common ancestor, regardless of whether we're talking about family members or other species. And while ancient DNA may be scarce, there are plenty of living things to take DNA samples of.
If you've got real evidence for ID, please let us know. If your evidence stands up to testing, it will be accepted, you'll win big prizes and you'll become filthy rich. Until then, please learn a bit more about science...go drink the milk.
Science welcomes competing theories. Unfortunately, as you clearly do not understand science, you do not understand that ID is not a competing theory.
A theory, in science, requires evidence. A lot of it. A scripture I like speaks of milk and meat. You want the meat right now...but you would be unable to understand/digest it. You need to start learning about the basics of science...so that you know what a theory is, etc., and so that you can understand, eventually, evolution.
We look at similarities in DNA and we can tell relationships from them. This includes close family relationships as well as much more distant species relationships. It's pretty much the same thing. Similar DNA indicates a similar common ancestor, regardless of whether we're talking about family members or other species. And while ancient DNA may be scarce, there are plenty of living things to take DNA samples of.
If you've got real evidence for ID, please let us know. If your evidence stands up to testing, it will be accepted, you'll win big prizes and you'll become filthy rich. Until then, please learn a bit more about science...go drink the milk.
Timj | 8:48 p.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan...
I'm still waiting. In fact, it's almost 9:00 pm and I'm done waiting. It's clear that you've returned to these boards, but you've failed to answer the questions that you promised, and I'm giving up on you. I'm not sure if you didn't reply because you had no answers, or if you didn't reply for other reasons, but, as a parting note, please go read Miller's book. It might change the way you think about ID. It will, at the very least, make you sound a little more informed when you comment on these boards, and I think people will have more respect for your opinion.
I'm still waiting. In fact, it's almost 9:00 pm and I'm done waiting. It's clear that you've returned to these boards, but you've failed to answer the questions that you promised, and I'm giving up on you. I'm not sure if you didn't reply because you had no answers, or if you didn't reply for other reasons, but, as a parting note, please go read Miller's book. It might change the way you think about ID. It will, at the very least, make you sound a little more informed when you comment on these boards, and I think people will have more respect for your opinion.
Ty | 9:13 p.m. May 5, 2008
I am a huge fan of asking "what if?" and in my educational experiences
in any science class we were always encouraged to ask what if and then follow it
up with research.
However, I do find that asking "what if?" in a religious context is discouraged. Very often when I ask "what if?" religious questions, I am cautioned not to dwell on these questions, scoffed at, or told that we should never question such things. My curiosity gets me in trouble.
So from my experience thinking is not nearly as welcomed in religion as it is in science.
The theory of evolution actually compels me to have greater faith. Science and spirituality co-exist peacefully in my mind. However I do not believe they should co-exist in a classroom setting. Leave the religion discussion in the church or home.
However, I do find that asking "what if?" in a religious context is discouraged. Very often when I ask "what if?" religious questions, I am cautioned not to dwell on these questions, scoffed at, or told that we should never question such things. My curiosity gets me in trouble.
So from my experience thinking is not nearly as welcomed in religion as it is in science.
The theory of evolution actually compels me to have greater faith. Science and spirituality co-exist peacefully in my mind. However I do not believe they should co-exist in a classroom setting. Leave the religion discussion in the church or home.
Timj | 9:15 p.m. May 5, 2008
Sorry about those previous posts...DN has an issue with posts not showing up for
a while after they're posted...
Ryan,
I used the word "understand" because of the quote you used..."evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
Personally, I think it's impossible to know whether a process like this is unguided or unplanned. It's also impossible to know if I'm sick today because God wanted me to be sick today, or if my height is due to the will of God. But science focuses on what we can know (or at least gain evidence for). Asking if something is guided or planned is cool in a philosophy class, but it's never had a place in science, and, up to this point, it has not taught us anything new about how science works. When evolutionary biologists who are religious study evolution, I'm fairly certain some of them wonder, "OK, what did God have in mind..." But that question is unanswerable in the realm of science. And so they focus on what science can figure out, and treat evolution like anything else in science, as a natural, unguided occurrence.
Ryan,
I used the word "understand" because of the quote you used..."evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
Personally, I think it's impossible to know whether a process like this is unguided or unplanned. It's also impossible to know if I'm sick today because God wanted me to be sick today, or if my height is due to the will of God. But science focuses on what we can know (or at least gain evidence for). Asking if something is guided or planned is cool in a philosophy class, but it's never had a place in science, and, up to this point, it has not taught us anything new about how science works. When evolutionary biologists who are religious study evolution, I'm fairly certain some of them wonder, "OK, what did God have in mind..." But that question is unanswerable in the realm of science. And so they focus on what science can figure out, and treat evolution like anything else in science, as a natural, unguided occurrence.
Ryan | 9:44 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
You wrote: "Did Miller have the correct quote up on the screen?"
Yes. His whole argument is nonsensical.
You wrote: "I admit that I don't understand how that changes the meaning of the quote at all. Maybe you could enlighten me?"
Miller is so tangled up it's hard to explain, but I'll try. Watch closely. This may take a number of posts.
First, Behe said an Irreducibly Complex system could not be produced "directly" meaning it could still be produced indirectly. But Behe argues that indirect pathways - like the ones Miller proposes - are improbable. However, Miller takes out the word "directly" and substitutes "the way that evolution works" (!) which implies that evolution works "directly." So, Miller's word switch implies that the indirect pathway he presents is not "the way that evolution works." So he is denying his own explanation without realizing it.
Continued
You wrote: "Did Miller have the correct quote up on the screen?"
Yes. His whole argument is nonsensical.
You wrote: "I admit that I don't understand how that changes the meaning of the quote at all. Maybe you could enlighten me?"
Miller is so tangled up it's hard to explain, but I'll try. Watch closely. This may take a number of posts.
First, Behe said an Irreducibly Complex system could not be produced "directly" meaning it could still be produced indirectly. But Behe argues that indirect pathways - like the ones Miller proposes - are improbable. However, Miller takes out the word "directly" and substitutes "the way that evolution works" (!) which implies that evolution works "directly." So, Miller's word switch implies that the indirect pathway he presents is not "the way that evolution works." So he is denying his own explanation without realizing it.
Continued
Ryan | 10:09 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
Continued
Second, Miller set up the quote by falsely claiming that Behe was saying that IC structures can't evolve, when in fact Behe was merely saying they can't evolve directly as a matter of definition.
[Let me explain how it is a matter of definition. In direct evolution, a given function starts existing at a simple level then gets complex. In indirect evolution, a given function starts existing at a complex level. An irreducibly complex structure is one in which the function can only exist at a complex level. The function cannot exist at a simple level and therefore cannot evolve directly - since direct evolution requires the function to exist at a simple level.
That does not mean the same function an IC structure has cannot also exist in simpler form in a different structure, only that the structure specific to the IC structure cannot produce the particular function at a lower level of complexity.]
Then to refute his straw man that Behe "says you can't evolve these things" Miller shows his indirect pathway.
Does "Behe says these can't evolve directly so I'm going to prove him wrong by showing they can evolve indirectly" make sense?
Continued
Continued
Second, Miller set up the quote by falsely claiming that Behe was saying that IC structures can't evolve, when in fact Behe was merely saying they can't evolve directly as a matter of definition.
[Let me explain how it is a matter of definition. In direct evolution, a given function starts existing at a simple level then gets complex. In indirect evolution, a given function starts existing at a complex level. An irreducibly complex structure is one in which the function can only exist at a complex level. The function cannot exist at a simple level and therefore cannot evolve directly - since direct evolution requires the function to exist at a simple level.
That does not mean the same function an IC structure has cannot also exist in simpler form in a different structure, only that the structure specific to the IC structure cannot produce the particular function at a lower level of complexity.]
Then to refute his straw man that Behe "says you can't evolve these things" Miller shows his indirect pathway.
Does "Behe says these can't evolve directly so I'm going to prove him wrong by showing they can evolve indirectly" make sense?
Continued
Ryan | 10:42 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
Continued
Third, Miller proceeds to butcher the use of the word "nonfunctional" from the quote. Behe referred to "function" in the "definition" of irreducible complexity, which is a reference to the specific function which only exists in the complete IC structure. That is why "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." That does not mean it can't have any function, only that it can't have the "primary function" as Behe calls it.
Irreducible Complexity is the "minimal amount of complexity a biological system may exhibit while still maintaining its primary function" therefore any precursor to it can not have that function.
Despite the fact that Behe specifically put the word "nonfunctional" in the context of the "definition" of IC, Miller insisted on ignoring the definition and pretending that "nonfunctional" means parts don't have function of any kind.
So Miller falsely claims that "if irreducible complexity is right, then the parts of these machines should be absolutely useless."
Look at his bombast: "analysis of the flagellum actually matches evolutionary theory - namely, the parts should have functions of their own, and not the intelligent design prediction. And that's simply a fact."
Continued
Third, Miller proceeds to butcher the use of the word "nonfunctional" from the quote. Behe referred to "function" in the "definition" of irreducible complexity, which is a reference to the specific function which only exists in the complete IC structure. That is why "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." That does not mean it can't have any function, only that it can't have the "primary function" as Behe calls it.
Irreducible Complexity is the "minimal amount of complexity a biological system may exhibit while still maintaining its primary function" therefore any precursor to it can not have that function.
Despite the fact that Behe specifically put the word "nonfunctional" in the context of the "definition" of IC, Miller insisted on ignoring the definition and pretending that "nonfunctional" means parts don't have function of any kind.
So Miller falsely claims that "if irreducible complexity is right, then the parts of these machines should be absolutely useless."
Look at his bombast: "analysis of the flagellum actually matches evolutionary theory - namely, the parts should have functions of their own, and not the intelligent design prediction. And that's simply a fact."
Ryan | 10:49 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
In light of the info I posted, I want to share a few other quotes from the Miller video:
"The argument is that evolution can't produce them because the individual parts have no function of their own. That's what irreducible complexity means."
"These great icons of intelligent design, these things that are supposedly unevolvable..."
"The notion that these complicated biochemical structures couldn't have been produced by evolution has been championed by Michael Behe."
"He says you can't evolve these things because they're irreducibly complex"
"if irreducible complexity is right, then the parts of these machines should be absolutely useless."
"Now if IC is right, this should be absolutely functionless."
"Are they functional? They are fully functional. So remember that claim, "any precursor to an IC system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional." This guy is missing 40 parts and it is perfectly functional. What that means, there's no other word for it, is that that statement is wrong. Now that's not an incidental statement, that is the heart and the soul of the intelligent design movement..."
In light of the info I posted, I want to share a few other quotes from the Miller video:
"The argument is that evolution can't produce them because the individual parts have no function of their own. That's what irreducible complexity means."
"These great icons of intelligent design, these things that are supposedly unevolvable..."
"The notion that these complicated biochemical structures couldn't have been produced by evolution has been championed by Michael Behe."
"He says you can't evolve these things because they're irreducibly complex"
"if irreducible complexity is right, then the parts of these machines should be absolutely useless."
"Now if IC is right, this should be absolutely functionless."
"Are they functional? They are fully functional. So remember that claim, "any precursor to an IC system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional." This guy is missing 40 parts and it is perfectly functional. What that means, there's no other word for it, is that that statement is wrong. Now that's not an incidental statement, that is the heart and the soul of the intelligent design movement..."
Paul | 10:57 p.m. May 5, 2008
Um, Anonymous, you do realize we have proteins from T. Rex, which have been
compared with living creatures? Turns out it is most closely related to a
chicken. Just like has been suggested since the 70s.
Did ID predict T. Rex and chickens?
Did ID predict T. Rex and chickens?
Joe Moe | 11:28 p.m. May 5, 2008
You guys that want to take on Ryan in a debate really need to hone your skills.
If I'm sitting as a neutral judge at a debate competition, it's an
easy call. Of course, it's obvious he has a strong background in logics
and debate. From a neutral standpoint, that doesn't necessarily make him
right, but it does make him a better debater.
That said, I guess this isn't really a formal debate and debate rules may not fully apply. Actually, I've enjoyed reading the back-and-forth between ya'all because it's been well thought out and, for the most part, civil and direct.
As for me, I'm going to bed after praying to God that I can someday better understand science, evolution, religion, and humanity. My degrees in science, psychology, and religion have left me with as many questions as answers.
That said, I guess this isn't really a formal debate and debate rules may not fully apply. Actually, I've enjoyed reading the back-and-forth between ya'all because it's been well thought out and, for the most part, civil and direct.
As for me, I'm going to bed after praying to God that I can someday better understand science, evolution, religion, and humanity. My degrees in science, psychology, and religion have left me with as many questions as answers.
Anonymous | 2:05 a.m. May 6, 2008
Wrong paul, they are most similar.
Whether they are related who really knows?
Timj, you have yet to actually prove anything except dna exists in all living creatures. Which tells something about them and what they are similar to.
Also I am not defending ID.
I am saying there many possible answers or possiblities as to existance of these so called "evidences".
Many old theories stood around stubbornly for many years. I suspect evolution will be the same until it succombs to advance abilities to find truth.
And it is revealed for the nonsense and ridiculousness it is.
There just too much one must assume or suppose such as evolution continued through mass extinctions, climate changes, and many other natural changes and forces.
Despite all that you must assume the millions if not billions of branching and separation to create the diversty of life thats exists now or ever existed in plant, tree, ocean, bird, insect, etc, etc. Including all the failed mutations which must have happened which must be magnitude more than before the succssful ones that supposedly happened.
It stretches the bounds of credulity.
Who decides what is science? Who is pompous, arrogant, or omniscient enough?
Whether they are related who really knows?
Timj, you have yet to actually prove anything except dna exists in all living creatures. Which tells something about them and what they are similar to.
Also I am not defending ID.
I am saying there many possible answers or possiblities as to existance of these so called "evidences".
Many old theories stood around stubbornly for many years. I suspect evolution will be the same until it succombs to advance abilities to find truth.
And it is revealed for the nonsense and ridiculousness it is.
There just too much one must assume or suppose such as evolution continued through mass extinctions, climate changes, and many other natural changes and forces.
Despite all that you must assume the millions if not billions of branching and separation to create the diversty of life thats exists now or ever existed in plant, tree, ocean, bird, insect, etc, etc. Including all the failed mutations which must have happened which must be magnitude more than before the succssful ones that supposedly happened.
It stretches the bounds of credulity.
Who decides what is science? Who is pompous, arrogant, or omniscient enough?
Ryan | 6:43 a.m. May 6, 2008
Joe Moe,
Thank you for the kind words. It's better than being called "stupid" ;)
Thank you for the kind words. It's better than being called "stupid" ;)
Faith | 6:57 a.m. May 6, 2008
I feel sorry for those that don't believe in God. Yea, some of you
understand how cells devide and others understand how TV works. God understands
it all. Elisabeth Barrett Browning said of those that would believe in God if
they saw a burning bush like Moses did "Every bush is alight with the fire
of God." Our world was created for our use, "both to gladden the heart
and to enliven the soul." It works. "Faith is not to have a perfect
knowledge of things."
I pitty those that think it's all over when we die. Ask what if, what if you're wrong?
I pitty those that think it's all over when we die. Ask what if, what if you're wrong?
G | 9:21 a.m. May 6, 2008
" When I was in high school science class we were always asking,
"Yeah, but what if ... " Apparently that question is not allowed in
academia anymore. If the "Yeah, but what if ... ." questions are not
being allowed anymore, then science will stagnate."
High school classes are not the places where scientific research is conducted, they're where the current collected body of scientific knowledge is taught. And no, science is not a democracy: there is no such thing as 'equal time'. You either have evidence on your side or you do not. There is no reason teachers should give time to just any author with a pet theory.
I hate to say it, but what is taught in school is actually irrelevant to science, which is why I don't really care if ID gets taught there or not. It won't make a difference for the kids that grow up to become accountants. The kids that become biologists or geologists will be set straight when they get to college. Sure, you have the scientifically illiterate voting for congressmen that are scientifically illiterate, but that has always been true.
High school classes are not the places where scientific research is conducted, they're where the current collected body of scientific knowledge is taught. And no, science is not a democracy: there is no such thing as 'equal time'. You either have evidence on your side or you do not. There is no reason teachers should give time to just any author with a pet theory.
I hate to say it, but what is taught in school is actually irrelevant to science, which is why I don't really care if ID gets taught there or not. It won't make a difference for the kids that grow up to become accountants. The kids that become biologists or geologists will be set straight when they get to college. Sure, you have the scientifically illiterate voting for congressmen that are scientifically illiterate, but that has always been true.
Ryan | 9:44 a.m. May 6, 2008
Timj,
My responses will be sporadic because I am at work.
You wrote: "I used the word "understand" because of the quote you used"
Exactly. And you made the same mistake as the people I was quoting. Like I said, I asked for evidence. "Understanding" is a poor substitute.
You wrote: "science focuses on what we can know (or at least gain evidence for)."
Except when it claims to "understand" that something is unguided and unplanned? Haven't seen any evidence for that one yet.
You wrote: "Asking if something is guided or planned is cool in a philosophy class, but it's never had a place in science"
So "asking" is not okay but arbitrarily "understanding" is?
You wrote: "And so they focus on what science can figure out, and treat evolution like anything else in science, as a natural, unguided occurrence."
No, science doesn't say anything is unguided/unplanned. It even looks for evidence of psychic power (Evidence for psychic power would exist, were it the best explanation. When someone claims to have evidence of psychic power, scientists usually love to examine it. They don't assume anything, but when they find better explanations for the phenomenon, the evidence shifts.)
My responses will be sporadic because I am at work.
You wrote: "I used the word "understand" because of the quote you used"
Exactly. And you made the same mistake as the people I was quoting. Like I said, I asked for evidence. "Understanding" is a poor substitute.
You wrote: "science focuses on what we can know (or at least gain evidence for)."
Except when it claims to "understand" that something is unguided and unplanned? Haven't seen any evidence for that one yet.
You wrote: "Asking if something is guided or planned is cool in a philosophy class, but it's never had a place in science"
So "asking" is not okay but arbitrarily "understanding" is?
You wrote: "And so they focus on what science can figure out, and treat evolution like anything else in science, as a natural, unguided occurrence."
No, science doesn't say anything is unguided/unplanned. It even looks for evidence of psychic power (Evidence for psychic power would exist, were it the best explanation. When someone claims to have evidence of psychic power, scientists usually love to examine it. They don't assume anything, but when they find better explanations for the phenomenon, the evidence shifts.)
Ryan | 11:23 a.m. May 6, 2008
Timj,
Thank you for letting me know that you did not understand what Miller did wrong. As promised, I will answer your questions.
"Can you define "species" accurately."
Last I heard, species was defined in terms of reproducibility. That doesn't make it significant per se, but it's a harmless classification.
"Do you understand that evolution and the big bang are two very different things."
That's like saying "trees and apples are very different." It's true, but it falsely implies they are not in any way similar. I would never mistake the two, but they are related in the emergence of complexity.
"Do you understand how mutations work."
Codons are changed. You could also count duplication of dna segments. I don't know everything that has been learned about mutations.
"What is a theory, and how is it different from a hypothesis."
A theory is an assertive statement with a lot of inductive evidence behind it. Theories are usually though not always consistent with other theories and be consistent with facts.
A hypothesis is an assertive statement without a lot of inductive evidence behind it.
Thank you for letting me know that you did not understand what Miller did wrong. As promised, I will answer your questions.
"Can you define "species" accurately."
Last I heard, species was defined in terms of reproducibility. That doesn't make it significant per se, but it's a harmless classification.
"Do you understand that evolution and the big bang are two very different things."
That's like saying "trees and apples are very different." It's true, but it falsely implies they are not in any way similar. I would never mistake the two, but they are related in the emergence of complexity.
"Do you understand how mutations work."
Codons are changed. You could also count duplication of dna segments. I don't know everything that has been learned about mutations.
"What is a theory, and how is it different from a hypothesis."
A theory is an assertive statement with a lot of inductive evidence behind it. Theories are usually though not always consistent with other theories and be consistent with facts.
A hypothesis is an assertive statement without a lot of inductive evidence behind it.
Ryan | 12:48 p.m. May 6, 2008
Fr1nk,
I will try to keep up with responses. Fortunately, there's no time limit on how long we can access comments here (is there?)
You wrote: "I do dispute that design isnt religion."
You mean you assert that it is religion? If you'd like to present evidence for your assertion I will respond to it. Of course, ID doesn't have to prove that it's not a religion.
You wrote: "If you research the subject, you will always be directed back to the discovery institute."
Yes they have religious motives. I suspect the Catholic Church might also be a religious organization, but even if they were the only ones who believed Common Descent, it wouldn't make Common Descent religious (even though they speak of it as part of "God's" plan).
You wrote: "As for the "design inferences"...If you explain it to me perhaps we can discuss it."
Design inference is simply drawing an inference of design. For instance, you browse the radio dial and get static. Then you get clear sounds similar to someone talking. You draw a design inference. Or you see stones on a beach collectively forming "help me please." The question is, does science draw design inferences?
I will try to keep up with responses. Fortunately, there's no time limit on how long we can access comments here (is there?)
You wrote: "I do dispute that design isnt religion."
You mean you assert that it is religion? If you'd like to present evidence for your assertion I will respond to it. Of course, ID doesn't have to prove that it's not a religion.
You wrote: "If you research the subject, you will always be directed back to the discovery institute."
Yes they have religious motives. I suspect the Catholic Church might also be a religious organization, but even if they were the only ones who believed Common Descent, it wouldn't make Common Descent religious (even though they speak of it as part of "God's" plan).
You wrote: "As for the "design inferences"...If you explain it to me perhaps we can discuss it."
Design inference is simply drawing an inference of design. For instance, you browse the radio dial and get static. Then you get clear sounds similar to someone talking. You draw a design inference. Or you see stones on a beach collectively forming "help me please." The question is, does science draw design inferences?
Ryan | 2:01 p.m. May 6, 2008
Timj,
With respect to my posts from last night, it is important to note that irreducibly complex structures come in all shapes and sizes and can be relatively simple, with few parts. There can even be smaller IC structures contained within a larger one. It is also possible for a precursor to evolve by losing parts.
It may have been confusing when I wrote, "An irreducibly complex structure is one in which the function can only exist at a complex level." I simply meant "complex" as being relative to the final structure in question. In other words, a structure with 3 parts is "complex" if it is the final structure we are talking about. But if we start with a structure that has 3 parts and we are trying to improve the function (rather than arrive at the function) then the 3 part structure is "simple" by comparison to the end product.
So, as a matter of definition, an IC structure cannot evolve from something with the same function. Since direct evolution works by improving the function in question, IC structures cannot be brought into being by direct evolution. Indirect evolution is possible, but ID argues improbable.
With respect to my posts from last night, it is important to note that irreducibly complex structures come in all shapes and sizes and can be relatively simple, with few parts. There can even be smaller IC structures contained within a larger one. It is also possible for a precursor to evolve by losing parts.
It may have been confusing when I wrote, "An irreducibly complex structure is one in which the function can only exist at a complex level." I simply meant "complex" as being relative to the final structure in question. In other words, a structure with 3 parts is "complex" if it is the final structure we are talking about. But if we start with a structure that has 3 parts and we are trying to improve the function (rather than arrive at the function) then the 3 part structure is "simple" by comparison to the end product.
So, as a matter of definition, an IC structure cannot evolve from something with the same function. Since direct evolution works by improving the function in question, IC structures cannot be brought into being by direct evolution. Indirect evolution is possible, but ID argues improbable.
Ryan | 2:16 p.m. May 6, 2008
Anonymous,
You wrote: "Who decides what is science? Who is pompous, arrogant, or omniscient enough?"
I think anyone can have their own "science." That's what Newton did - improving vastly upon what was previously there. It's just a question of which "science" gets accepted and by whom. The problem with the anti-ID crowd is that they want to prevent the people from deciding locally.
There are no authorities of science, only authorities of government. Being recognized with a degree from an institution is a great indicator of disciplinary knowledge, but it does not give anyone authority. The layperson often associates the word "science" with the great advances. However, the truly great advances were made by only a few brilliant thinkers. The average scientist is a fairly bright person who went to school and learned what the great ones did but is not a great one himself.
Certainly, the title "scientist" should not imply the weight of science itself, just as the title "basketball player" shouldn't imply the talent of Michael Jordan. Basketball players range from Jr. High to NBA All-Star. So it is in science.
You wrote: "Who decides what is science? Who is pompous, arrogant, or omniscient enough?"
I think anyone can have their own "science." That's what Newton did - improving vastly upon what was previously there. It's just a question of which "science" gets accepted and by whom. The problem with the anti-ID crowd is that they want to prevent the people from deciding locally.
There are no authorities of science, only authorities of government. Being recognized with a degree from an institution is a great indicator of disciplinary knowledge, but it does not give anyone authority. The layperson often associates the word "science" with the great advances. However, the truly great advances were made by only a few brilliant thinkers. The average scientist is a fairly bright person who went to school and learned what the great ones did but is not a great one himself.
Certainly, the title "scientist" should not imply the weight of science itself, just as the title "basketball player" shouldn't imply the talent of Michael Jordan. Basketball players range from Jr. High to NBA All-Star. So it is in science.
Ryan | 9:59 a.m. May 7, 2008
"answer the question...",
Sorry, forgot about you.
How ID can be tested? You have to understand what ID is. It's a set of standards defining how science infers design. Science has always inferred design but in an intuitive, arbitrary fashion. ID sets an objective standard. That standard can be tested by confirming through independant means whether a given thing was intelligently designed. For instance, a set of several dozen rocks on a beach in the shape of "Rescue Me Please" would receive a "positive" from ID. If we confirm that a person intelligently laid the rocks in that design, it is one piece of evidence confirming ID.
ID can be falsified by a better explanation. Someone might propose that waves tossed rocks around the beach and they ended up in that alignment. They would have to show that the probability of waves doing that is better. Waves themselves have a better explanation than intelligence, so it would falsify ID.
Whether the standards proposed by ID are accurate or need tweaking and adjustment remains to be seen. But adjustments are not new to science. It's certainly an endeavor which should be encouraged rather than insulted and ridiculed.
Sorry, forgot about you.
How ID can be tested? You have to understand what ID is. It's a set of standards defining how science infers design. Science has always inferred design but in an intuitive, arbitrary fashion. ID sets an objective standard. That standard can be tested by confirming through independant means whether a given thing was intelligently designed. For instance, a set of several dozen rocks on a beach in the shape of "Rescue Me Please" would receive a "positive" from ID. If we confirm that a person intelligently laid the rocks in that design, it is one piece of evidence confirming ID.
ID can be falsified by a better explanation. Someone might propose that waves tossed rocks around the beach and they ended up in that alignment. They would have to show that the probability of waves doing that is better. Waves themselves have a better explanation than intelligence, so it would falsify ID.
Whether the standards proposed by ID are accurate or need tweaking and adjustment remains to be seen. But adjustments are not new to science. It's certainly an endeavor which should be encouraged rather than insulted and ridiculed.
RangerGordon | 2:00 a.m. May 8, 2008
"With all their evolutionary theories and fancy equipment, scientists still
cannot create life in the laboratory."
I just love this argument for Creationism-ID.
By the creationists' logic, gravity doesn't exist, since scientists likewise cannot create gravity from scratch in the laboratory.
I just love this argument for Creationism-ID.
By the creationists' logic, gravity doesn't exist, since scientists likewise cannot create gravity from scratch in the laboratory.
Ryan | 6:27 a.m. May 8, 2008
RangerGordon,
Creating life in the laboratory would be an example of intelligent design.
If you learned what it actually was, you might like it.
Creating life in the laboratory would be an example of intelligent design.
If you learned what it actually was, you might like it.
Sam H. | 8:25 a.m. May 8, 2008
Intelligent Design is an old argument from Deism (and from Anselm, but that goes
too far back). The silly "Watchmaker" analogy has been thoroughly
dismantled over many decades.
The most important arguments against Intelligent Design are the tsunamis, hurricanes, and cyclones that are killing hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are undeniably innocent children!
So when you look at the world and its machinations, and you want to infer an "intelligent designer," we must infer a malicious designer, a murderer of innocent children, a horrible omniscient and omnipotent tyrant who arbitrarily inflicts suffering, destruction, and death on those he/she/it created. That is an EVIL design!
Such a repugnant theory is unacceptable not only on scientific grounds, but also for moral and ethical reasons, I reject ID.
The most important arguments against Intelligent Design are the tsunamis, hurricanes, and cyclones that are killing hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are undeniably innocent children!
So when you look at the world and its machinations, and you want to infer an "intelligent designer," we must infer a malicious designer, a murderer of innocent children, a horrible omniscient and omnipotent tyrant who arbitrarily inflicts suffering, destruction, and death on those he/she/it created. That is an EVIL design!
Such a repugnant theory is unacceptable not only on scientific grounds, but also for moral and ethical reasons, I reject ID.
Ryan | 11:00 a.m. May 8, 2008
Sam H,
You wrote: "The silly "Watchmaker" analogy has been thoroughly dismantled over many decades"
I didn't mention watches, but we can discuss them if you'd like. Do you think someone who had never seen a watch before could infer design if they came across and examined one? Do you think there is a scientific basis for that inference? If so, then what?
You wrote: "So when you look at the world and its machinations, and you want to infer an "intelligent designer," we must infer a malicious designer"
You mean like a personal trainer at a gym?
You wrote: "a horrible omniscient and omnipotent tyrant who arbitrarily inflicts suffering, destruction, and death on those he/she/it created"
If you'd like to discuss religion, we can do that too. I don't mind a change in subject so long as we don't forget to return to the topic.
Do you think anything good can come of knowing what suffering is like? Do you think there's a different way to know what it's like other than to experience it?
You wrote: "The silly "Watchmaker" analogy has been thoroughly dismantled over many decades"
I didn't mention watches, but we can discuss them if you'd like. Do you think someone who had never seen a watch before could infer design if they came across and examined one? Do you think there is a scientific basis for that inference? If so, then what?
You wrote: "So when you look at the world and its machinations, and you want to infer an "intelligent designer," we must infer a malicious designer"
You mean like a personal trainer at a gym?
You wrote: "a horrible omniscient and omnipotent tyrant who arbitrarily inflicts suffering, destruction, and death on those he/she/it created"
If you'd like to discuss religion, we can do that too. I don't mind a change in subject so long as we don't forget to return to the topic.
Do you think anything good can come of knowing what suffering is like? Do you think there's a different way to know what it's like other than to experience it?
Ryan | 11:17 a.m. May 8, 2008
Fr1nk,
I do hope you bookmark this discussion so we can continue it.
Or.. if you've changed your mind about scientists being willing to discuss substance, I hope you will let me know.
I do hope you bookmark this discussion so we can continue it.
Or.. if you've changed your mind about scientists being willing to discuss substance, I hope you will let me know.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Kelly expects rapid improvement 1:35 a.m.
- Utah Grizzlies fall in California 1:34 a.m.
- Panthers end 4-game losing skid 1:30 a.m.
- Sports briefs 1:29 a.m.
- Arena football back in Utah in April 1:25 a.m.
- Taiwan checking nuke report 12:52 a.m.
- Al-Qaida denies killing civilians 12:46 a.m.
- China finds $1.5 billion in corruption 12:46 a.m.
- Dale has fond memories of Bowl 12:39 a.m.
- Springville comes back against AF 12:37 a.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
195 - Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy107
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke95
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Boozer will be gone before the season ends, after all he continues to...
NBA coaches of good teams would love for Sloan to keep coaching. They know...
this article makes me ashamed i went to byu. how is that a real university?...
Dear Jumbo and Classic. Oh, how negative you are. I can just imagine you as...
Jeckle and Hyde has very little to do with Boozer. It has a lot to do with a...
You can thank Val Hale for the navy blue uniforms it's just too bad he was...
The chill-seekers tried to sneak off with a bunch of science cred. But they...
Nick is an amazing kid. I go to school with him. This game shows that Lehi we...
I think that Salt Lake City would be a great place to hold the 2012 RNC. Salt...
Hernandez is much better than Pitta. Pitta was lucky to be nominated with the...
Advertisements
As for the "design inferences", I dont know what that really means so I cant really talk about it. If you explain it to me perhaps we can discuss it. I will check back in a couple hours.