Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Intelligent Design As A Science Stopper

Expand Messages
  • kevi
    ... Intelligent ...
    Message 1 of 72 , Jun 1, 2006
      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan
      <sbcogan@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      <http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/05/30/intelligent_design_as_a
      _scienc/>Intelligent
      > Design As A Science Stopper
      >
      > Category:
      >
      <http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/creationism/intelligent_design/>In
      telligent
      > Design
      >
      <http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/05/30/intelligent_design_as_a
      _scienc/>Posted
      > on: May 30, 2006 11:57 AM, by
      >
      > Biologist frequently make the argument that intelligent design is
      a
      > science stopper. By resorting to the "God of the Gaps" approach ID
      > renders science futile, biologist argue. ID proponents hate this
      argument.
      >
      > Recently, I ordered a copy of
      > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815341857/qid=1149006046/sr=2-
      1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3868775-3905714?
      s=books&v=glance&n=283155>Human
      > Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples and Disease (I'm on
      chapter 3
      > and all I can say is buy it!). On page 12 you will find the best
      > statement of the ID as science stopper arguement I have
      encountered:
      >
      > The great twentieth century evolutionary biologist Theodosius
      > Dobzhansky wrote that:
      >
      > 'Nothin in biology makes sense except in light of evolution'
      >
      > All of the sizes, shapes, chemistries and genes of organisms alive
      > today derive from ancestors that can be traced back over billions
      of
      > years. All of these features have been shaped by the environmental
      > challenges faced by these organisms and their ancestors. If it
      were
      > not the case that humans share a common ancestor with every
      species
      > on the planet, there would be no value in performing any form of
      > comparitive analysis. There would be nothing that the Escherichia
      > coli bacterium, brewers yeast, fruit fly, nematode worm, zebra
      fish,
      > mouse or chimpanzee could tell us about ourselves. It is our
      shared
      > evolutionary heritage that makes them such powerful 'model
      organisms'.
      >
      > The authors of the above quote then go on to make a point about
      > comparing segments of DNA in the mouse genome to segments in the
      human genome:
      >
      > ...we can identify regions whoseevolution has been constrained by
      the
      > need to perform a specific function. In otherwords, we can
      identify a
      > gene not because it looks like a gene, nor because an organism
      treats
      > it like a gene..., but because it evolves like a gene.
      >
      > Which really strikes to the heart of the matter. Sans evolution,
      > sequencing all those genomes can tell us absolutely nothing about
      > ourselves. What we would have, without evolution, is a series of
      > species with no relationship to each other. Which creates the
      > methodological issue mentioned in the above quote. If Escherichia
      > coli bacterium, brewers yeast, fruit fly, nematode worm, zebra
      fish,
      > mouse and chimpanzees are not related how can we compare them
      > (leaving aside the question of the value of the comparison - i.e.
      > whether it would tell us anything meaningful)?
      >
      >
      http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/05/30/intelligent_design_as_a_
      scienc/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------
      > Author of
      > "Merlin's Gate: The Weapon," An Amazon Short
      > $.49 you won't regret spending. Trust me.
      > http://tinyurl.com/fbmec
      >
      > And Much More: http://www.coganbooks.net
      >
      *********************************

      ID is a science enhancer. Some scientists pride themselves in
      admitting "we don't know", when some things are beyond scientific
      explanation. They might as well admit to an ID to things they
      cannot explain, or do not know.
    • Eric
      ... I can t speak to why Creationists would want to do one thing over another, since much of their activities seem hypocritical and bizarre to me annyway. But
      Message 72 of 72 , Jul 30, 2007
        <debunkingevolution@...> wrote:
        >
        > you have avoided the question--Dinosaurs should be lower in depth
        > than most other creatures. Why would a creationist want to prove
        > otherwise? >>


        I can't speak to why Creationists would want to do one thing over
        another, since much of their activities seem hypocritical and bizarre
        to me annyway. But I would think any decent, honest person would want
        to find the truth- whatever it is.

        Now, you have repeatedly asserted that Dinosaurs "should be lower in
        depth than most other creatures."

        OK, first tell us WHY this should, in your mind, be the case.

        Second, tell us why in actuality about 90% of the fossil history of
        life occurs BELOW the first emergence of dinosaurs- in direct
        contradiction to what you keep claiming *should* be the case.

        PLEASE address BOTH of these issues ASAP.

        Thanks!!

        Eric
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.