Badger3k
Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
| Quote (bjray @ April 16 2010,00:57) | | Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35) | | Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58) | | I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me. |
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment... |
Hello my fellow acquaintances. My has it been a while. I could continue to give my rationale for it, but it's of no consequence.
So where were we...I think it was something along the lines of people expressing their honest feelings about Dembski and also wanting proof for how to calculate CSI for things.
Well, unfortunately, I can offer you no good advice on how to calculate such readings of an object using his CSI theory (if you will). Thing is, I have not in my spare time (the little there is), nor as a part of class, actually read his work on CSI.
At any rate, I've been reading more material, etc. I think I have more questions now than before. But what I've read from your response are things about Dembski and things about how Behe and other ID'ers offer no "real" theories worth looking into.
Well, I think that ID'ers, evolutionists, old earth, young earth, all have some interesting points worth taking into consideration (some more than others, yes). What I'm interested in is going back to Darwin and his thought of evolution. For instance, what was his purpose in thinking up his theory of evolution (and survival of the fittest)? I think he was trying to make sense of the world (in essence a "theological" framework). Maybe I have not read as much as I should, but it appears that he did not have much to say about things like how the earth was created using his theory of evolution, etc. Rather, it seems to me that he was instead, trying to put the pieces of science together based on his findings of fossils, etc spread around the globe.
What I am getting at/what I am working out in my head is how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something that he (Charles Darwin) never intended for his "theory" to do? Now, I obviously cannot tell his intentions, but it he was not even so sure about everything he said!
Another thing I'm working on trying to understand from my evolutionary friends is their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology. My best friend has a Ph.D in molecular biology for Cornell U. and he too wonders similar things.
For example (and back to Behe and his irreducible complexity), we know (today) that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Such that without one of the pieces, it would fail to operate as it was designed. It's just what has been discovered, that's all.
I know know, I'm jumping around. It's just the way I think sometimes.
Cubist, I think your post here is a little too reductionistic (if you will). My opinion on it is that ID'ers are not merely trying to provide answers to question like someone, somewhere, did something...but are also attempting to show the stepping stones of how to get to those answers. For example: the thought that maybe intelligent design is a feasible option with supporting evidence. (you may say, what supporting evidence...but I would submit that they have provided it, people just don't accept it as "good" evidence, or what they think is "evidence.")
All right, good to be back.
p.s. "I think" many people miss the two words at the top left of this picture...
 |
Wow - very confused is what I would say. For instance - what does Darwin's purpose for putting together the theory of evolution matter for anything? Just curiosity? What does "how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something something that he...never intended for his "theory" to do" even mean? Despite the scare quotes, evolutionary theory is a real one - it's been tested, verified, supported - all the stuff real science requires. Your use of scare quotes tells me you are not well informed. People "praise Darwin" - if you will - because he was the one who first formulated what would become the cornerstone of modern biology. A very noteworthy accomplishment.
If a man named Yeshua ben Yoseph (if I've written the Hebrew down correctly - it's been a while since I tried it) existed and was a messianic prophet (to borrow Bart Ehrmans hypothesis), why would you praise him for starting something that became far more than he ever intended? But I bet you do. Why?
I'd like to know this name of this best friend at Cornell who is an ID advocate - if that is the intent. The wording you use is pretty much mush. What the hell is "their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology"? Are you asking about the motivations of scientists? Their philosophical or religious beliefs? Questions about their curiosity? It sounds a lot like "Dude, did you ever look at your hand? I mean, really look at it?" to me.
Finally, since I need to stop, if you think that we "know that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems", then you really haven't been paying attention. Too much of Behe, not enough actual science. Try a biology class instead of philosophy, and try real scientists, not hacks whose ideas have been torn to shreds by people who work in the fields he's trying to pervert.
The "argument" (such as it is) of "it would fail to operate as it was designed" is (I believe) question begging, or circular reasoning. The implication is that the system was designed and has a purpose - which implies intelligence - most systems have functions, not purposes. The "design hypothesis" has to show, with evidence, not just handwaving and god-of-the-gaps and arguments from ignorance, that there is design. Then you can make the claim that things fail to operate as they were designed. You can wish all you want that the "evidence" provided by the IDiots is good, but it fails every test and at every point. Pretty piss-poor (or feces-rich) "evidence" to me. Science is based on evidence that stands up to everything, not fold like Troy Aikman before a tackle (I've never seen a quarterback collapse so fast when rushed, sorry Cowboy fans, if there are any reading).
--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G
|
