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

RE: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    Bill: The real problem revolves around the word chance and mutation . It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected (and
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      "Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
      It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
      (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
      followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
      so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
      very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
      this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
      sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
      earth or universe to produce those kind of changes."

      Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
      I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
      explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
      existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
      public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
      science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
      That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
      whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
      for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

      Jahnets: Have you ever read up on the Cornish Rex cat??? I owned one so
      have. They started from a mutation in a farm cat. The owners had the smarts
      to try and keep the line going. Soooo I present to you yet another example
      of how we also were made... Both are correct... As with the Cornish Rex,
      what started as a mutation was helped along by an alien being(we are in fact
      a different being than the cat). What is beginning to amuse me is that it
      seems so obvious to me and yet others reject it out of hand. God or All
      That Is is interacting with us by providing mutations that we then adjust to
      this dimension. Why is humanity so tied to being extra special that they
      can't see how special they are??? I see the problem with the establishment
      being one of not wanting to admit that for a couple thousand years they have
      been duped. It is the ultimate transgression and will probably leave people
      shocked and they simply won't know who to trust anymore... Afterall they
      have been raised with these premises and fought wars over these premises and
      the lists go on and on... To suddenly find out that both sides are right
      will be a shock for some, but there is only one way to do it. I would think
      that TPTB would want the trust of the peoples as it makes it so much easier
      to deal with. So if they came out with the truth that both sides are right,
      it would show the people that they were in fact capabile of giving them the
      truth... After a brief shocked pause trust would follow as the people would
      think they knew what they were talking about even though they(the people)
      personally hadn't figured it out completely yet... They would be hailed in
      the history books for millions of years...ha ha Ok so now here I have given
      them the answer to their dilema, lets see if they are ready to take it...ha
      ha



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
      Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:12 AM
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



      Bill: ...The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't all that sure that
      his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it before molecular biology
      had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected that their science
      would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does not......

      Regan: Yes, it is amazing how Darwin's theory has succeeded in spite of the
      science involved, rather than because of it! :-) But then, it never was
      accepted on proven scientific grounds in the first place, was it? Rather,
      it just appeared "elegant" to a lot of people who wanted to find a
      "scientific" alternative to religious creationism to explain the origin of
      life.

      Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
      It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
      (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
      followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
      so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
      very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
      this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
      sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
      earth or universe to produce those kind of changes.

      Regan: Unfortunately, disproving Darwinian evolutionary theory on
      mathematical grounds could be like disproving the Big Bang theory on
      mathematical grounds. Orthodox scientists often react to such challenges by
      inventing some new theoretical principle which "corrects" the mathematics of
      the theory but preserves its basic fallacies intact. Or, they may stick to
      their guns and say, in effect, "Improbable events can happen." They may be
      asking us to swallow a camel with this argument, but which ID-theorists
      would be able to refute it? Unless the ID theorists can show, in rigorous
      mathematical terms, that life most probably has arisen by Intelligent
      Design, then orthodox evolutionary theory seems safe.

      Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
      between scientists is political. I am sure you know this.

      Regan: I do know this, Bill, but whatever appearance I may be giving, my
      basic point is not about the politics that are involved here. It is that
      the proponents of ID appear to be taking on the Goliath of the scientific
      establishment in an oblique manner which does not attack the central
      isssues. They seem unmindful, to me, that what they are disputing is not
      just a particular theory, but the whole worldview on which all western
      civilization and culture have been founded since Newton's day. ID theory is
      fundamentally incompatible with this worldview and in arguing with Darwinism
      (which is compatible with it), the ID-theorists are proposing implicitly
      that this long-established worldview be changed. But they have not made it
      clear yet as to why and how that worldview needs to be changed, nor what
      better worldview exists to replace it. A worldview is essentially a
      philosophical notion, not a scientific one, and by pitching their arguments
      mainly at scientists and by arguing mainly on the scientific level, the
      ID-proponents appear to be ignoring the core-issues that need to be
      addressed as a priority. Consequently, the ID movement in its present form
      seems self-doomed to ineffectuality and failure, to me.

      Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
      the opposition is very resistant.
      There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
      Schwartz

      Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
      I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
      explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
      existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
      public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
      science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
      That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
      whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
      for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

      Regards,
      Regan
      _____


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bill Hamilton
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:44 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Regan Power
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:54 AM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


      Bill,

      Thanks for referring me to De(m?)bski's book, but I'll never get
      time to read it in my present incarnation, you know. I guess I'll just
      have
      to content myself with the knowledge of ID that comes from within and not
      aspire to becoming one of the learnéd literati on the subject.

      Do we have to be so learnéd before we can discuss ID
      intelligently,
      though? Surely, the issues at stake are quite simple, aren't they?
      Orthodox science has always maintained that life did not originate with an
      Intelligent Designer and orthodox religion has always maintained that it
      did. Historically, orthodox science feels it has already settled this
      question, by winning a long and hard-fought intellectual war with religion
      over it, and it is not of a mind to unsettle the question again now just
      to
      please a bunch of eccentric academics, who appear not to have understood
      science properly and who seem to want to reintroduce religious creationism
      back into contemporary scientific thought through the back door. Orthodox
      scientists are not going to have it and they will fight tooth and nail in
      order to stop ID from being, as they see it, surreptitiously foisted onto
      them. They have too much to lose to let that happen.
      Bill: What you say Regan is true. Orthodox scientists will defend Darwin
      almost to dueling pistols. The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't
      all that sure that his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it
      before
      molecular biology had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected
      that
      their science would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does
      not. The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
      It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be
      selected
      (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
      followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
      so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
      very
      long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of this
      happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
      sometimes
      is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the earth or
      universe to produce those kind of changes.


      So, like it or not, the ID-enthusiasts are already involved in a
      ruthless war with orthodox science which is basically political and not
      scientific in nature. And modern intellectual warfare is essentially no
      different to physical warfare, in that what ultimately counts is public
      opinion. Orthodox science enjoys a massive advantage over the ID-movement
      in this respect, because it is already occupying the highest seat of
      intellectual authority in the public mind. In other words, it has already
      won all the arguments in principle, as far as most people are concerned,
      and
      it is already all over bar the shouting. So the ID movement has a long,
      uphill struggle ahead of it to get its points across, both to a
      scientifically illiterate public and to a devoutly skeptical, profoundly
      prejudiced, orthodox scientific community, whose suspicions have already
      been aroused and which has already gone to Defcon 4 over the issue.

      Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
      between scientists is political. I am
      sure you know this.

      As far as I can see, the ID-movement is not effectively addressing
      this imperative need to get its essential point of view across first to
      the
      general public, as preparation for its ultimate confrontation with the
      orthodox scientific camp in a grand, public debate (perhaps like the
      Oxford
      Union debate of the 19th century which overturned creationism and
      established Darwinism originally). In doing this, I think it needs to
      make
      its points with crystal clarity and in simple, non-technical terms which
      are
      idiot-proof, so that people like me, who have never read a single book on
      the subject, can grasp them without really trying. That is a tall order,
      of
      course, but I can see no way of avoiding it if the ID-movement is to
      become
      an effective transformer and enlightener of human minds. As it is, it
      seems
      just to be engaging in scattered ivory-tower debates of an arcane,
      academic
      kind, which can amount to nothing more than minor intellectual skirmishes
      of
      no great public significance. Surely, it will never get anywhere like
      this.

      Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
      the opposition is very resistant.
      There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
      Schwartz


      Psychiatry/ Neuroscience UCLA Department of Psychiatry




      Regan
      _____


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bill Hamilton
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:40 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


      Regan,

      You ought to read Dr. William Debski's book The Design Revolution.

      Dembski, a philosopher/mathematician who has been an important theorist
      for
      the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and
      objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew
      on. The book's timing is appropriate; it is only in the past few years
      that
      ID, initially dismissed by some scientists as "creationism in a cheap
      tuxedo," has also begun to attract a more sophisticated brand of
      criticism.
      These critiques come not only from evolutionary biologists and
      philosophers
      of biology, but also from Christian theologians who have made peace with
      Darwinian evolution.

      He argues every pont that ID has been challenged with in this book.
      It is worth the read as it gives you the criticsims and the answers.

      Bill


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Regan Power
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


      I have a sneaky feeling that the whole ID debate is being argued
      on
      the wrong level. The traditional evolutionary theorists are arguing on
      the
      basis of some arbitrary fundamental assumptions which the proponents of
      ID
      are not actually challenging. Instead, they are attempting to
      demonstrate
      phenomenal evidence for ID when such evidence cannot possibly exist,
      because
      intelligence is not an observable phenomenon - at least, not in the
      context
      of empirical modern science. So although the traditionalists have got
      it
      wrong, the ID-proponents are not showing them how they are wrong and are
      merely adding to their confusion by presenting false evidence for ID,
      which
      the traditionalists are able to refute fairly easily.

      I gather that the traditionalists' argument is basically that
      the
      orderly phenomena of life can have come out of the chaos of the
      pre-biological universe spontaneously and without the need for an
      original
      organising intelligence. Then they cite Occam's Razor to justify their
      rejection of the ID-proposition that an original organising intelligence
      nevertheless existed. And indeed, this rejection seems perfectly
      correct
      from the standpoint of modern science, while the position of the
      advocates
      of ID appears unscientific, as well as mistaken.

      However, we can find a contradiction in the traditionalist
      argument,
      which becomes apparent when we ask how traditional evolutionary theory
      explains where the conscious intelligence in living systems originally
      came
      from. The traditionalists have no honest answer to this. Their
      standard
      "answer" is a form of intellectual sleight-of-hand, which consists of
      the
      assertion that intelligence "emerged" out of the sheer complexity of
      interactions between myriads of purely unconscious material particles
      and
      their associated energy-fields in brain-tissues. But this is really a
      non-answer, which totally fails to explain how conscious intelligence
      could
      "emerge" in a medium which did not possess it to begin with. It is
      simply
      an appeal to the miraculous and is void of logic.

      So it appears to me that the traditionalist theory fails to
      explain
      all that it needs to explain and that the traditionalists have invoked
      Occam's Razor a bit too soon. They have strikingly failed, in fact, to
      explain how conscious intelligence could arise in a fundamentally
      unconscious universe and until they can explain this, their theory is
      intellectually bankrupt, in my view. The ID-proponents, on the other
      hand,
      seem strongly placed, to me, to explain how intelligence arises - not in
      a
      fundamentally unintelligent universe, of course, but in a fundamentally
      intelligent one.

      Regan
      _____


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: DRxDON
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:58 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


      Bill,

      OK, according to the defined parameters here, there is a definite
      object.
      I
      guess then,
      that I would suggest "intelligent self-organization" as my *prefered*
      way
      of
      seeing things,
      with all of the constituent parts heving "intelligence" and
      "consciousness".
      Of course,
      this gets too much into the realm of metaphysics and away from anything
      that
      current science
      can "prove" or even hypothesise. I just feel that if scientists changed
      their mindset to one
      closer to that of intelligent self-organization, they would then begin
      the
      process of
      discovery.

      Don


      Bill Hamilton wrote:
      >
      > Don,
      >
      > If you had an intelligent design drawn by an engineer for a car on
      > blueprint paper,
      > how is the engineer the intelligent design? He/she is the designer.
      > Non-dualism is
      > fine, but not in this context as you have already specified an object.
      > The intelligent
      > design itself may be in the mind of the designer. The ID premise is
      to
      > find evidence
      > of design (allegedly), not to find out the identity of the designer.
      > Following this,
      > a competing proposition is self-organization. So far, no one has
      proved
      > anything
      > so far except that Darwin's theories are lacking.
      >
      > Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: DRxDON
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:27 PM
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin
      >
      > Why does "intelligent design" necessitate the existence of a
      *separate*
      > "intelligent
      > designer"? I don't think any real progress will be made in the
      > discovery of the origin
      > and development of nature until this Wetern dualism between subject
      and
      > object is
      > reconciled. The design is *ItSELF* intelligent! ...at ALL levels
      of
      > being.
      >
      > Don
      >
      > Light Eye wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Friends,
      > >
      > > http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=18444
      > >
      > > Love and Light.
      > >
      > > David
      > >
      > > Intelligent design confronts Darwin
      > > By Claire LeFevre
      > > News Writer
      > > 2/20/2005
      > >
      > > Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, shared his
      thoughts
      on
      > biochemical evolution and his disageements with many aspects of
      Darwin's
      > theory of human
      > evolution
      > > on Feb. 17 in Linderman Library.
      > >
      > > "Intelligent design is not a mystical conclusion and it is very
      good
      > at recognizing design and the physical structure of a system," he
      said.
      > >
      > > Rather than Darwin's theory of evolution, Behe supports the
      concept
      of
      > intelligent design, which maintains that the universe was designed by
      an
      > intelligent agent,
      > rather
      > > than by an accident. The intelligent design theory is one of
      > irreducible compexlity that tries to explain evolutionary production
      as
      a
      > machine, Behe said.
      > >
      > > To explain this idea better Behe gave an example of comparing the
      > mountain ranges in Idaho versus Mt. Rushmore.
      > >
      > > "For the mountains in Idaho we ask the question, how did they
      > originate?" he said. "What in nature made them evolve into the masses
      that
      > they are today? For Mt.
      > Rushmore
      > > when we ask the same question, how did they originate? We come up
      with
      > a very different answer which includes the effects of intelligence.
      There
      > were other resources
      > used
      > > to have Mt. Rushmore look the way it does today, those resources
      > include the use of machines."
      > >
      > > Behe then turned to another point in his oratry.
      > >
      > > "Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed, he said. We
      can
      > find these designs in the simplest parts of our world, that of cell."
      > >
      > > Behe referred to Bruce Alberts, a well-known name in the field of
      > biology who concurs with him. Behe quoted Alberts:
      > >
      > > "We underestimate the cells, they are protein machines, machines
      > within machines," he said.
      > >
      > > Behe's explanation that cells are "machines" was meant to be taken
      in
      > the literal sense. Behe explained that every part of every cell has a
      > function, and if one piece
      > of
      > > that cell were missing or "out of order" that would mean the cell
      as
      a
      > whole would not be able to function. Each and every part of the cell
      is
      > needed, he said. It
      > works
      > > as a whole, as one entity, to complete its function properly.
      > >
      > > He explained this idea further by using a mousetrap as an example.
      It
      > is a system in which all the parts interact with one another to
      produce
      an
      > effect. Without each
      > part
      > > working together there is no effect, thus the mousetrap would not
      be
      > able to complete its function, which is to catch the mice.
      > >
      > > Behe said this idea would be "a headache for the Darwin Theory."
      > >
      > > How one recognizes this design is to look at the interaction
      between
      > the parts of the whole, Behe said.
      > >
      > > One of Behe's main critiques of Darwin theory of evolution was
      that
      it
      > lacked explanations and was based solely on speculation.
      > >
      > > "Darwin rests on imagination," he said. For Darwin there are no
      > explanations, just speculation. "Science should follow evidence and
      you
      > can't worry about the
      > > implications. Darwin never gives us an answer," Behe said.
      > >
      > > The argument for intelligent design does not work for every aspect
      of
      > Darwin's theory of evolution, but it gives a sense of reason and logic
      > that humans can look for
      > to
      > > get answers for how things have come to be in our complex world,
      Behe
      > said.
      > >
      > > Behe based his lecture on a novel he wrote that came to the
      publics'
      > attention in 1997. The novel 'Darwin's Black Box,' has been very
      popular
      > in scientific and
      > academic
      > > circles.
      > >
      > > Behe has been very involved in the world's research on the theory
      of
      > biochemical evolution.
      > >
      > > In the novel, he challenges the theory that many have believed for
      > decades regarding the origin of the species and natural selection.
      > >
      > > Behe presented his case to a diverse audience. There were
      > undergraduate and graduate students in attendance as well as teachers
      from
      > outside of the Lehigh community
      > who
      > > were interested in learning more about intelligent design.
      > >
      > > "[I am] searching for an alternative theory for human evolution
      > myself, out of my own curiosity and I was interested in what the
      professor
      > had to say about his
      > theory,"
      > > said Sun Hwang, '07, a student who attended the lecture.
      > >
      > > "I am a big believer of intelligent design," Sean McKeever, '08,
      said.
      > "But never got a chance to read the books, so I was curious to hear
      what
      > Behe had to say about
      > the
      > > topic."
      > >
      > > Other audience members were just taking advantage of the many
      speakers
      > that have come to Lehigh this semester.
      > >
      > > "A great deal of knowledge can be learned from these types of
      lectures
      > and we have so many kinds of opportunities like this on our campus,"
      Rob
      > Guzzon, '06, said.
      > >
      > > "I just wish more people would take advantage of them and want to
      > learn more about these types of things."
      > >
      > > Some scientists, such as Neil Greenspan and Michael Ruse disagree
      with
      > Behe and his theories. They agree with Darwin's theory.
      > >
      > > In response to Behe's novel, critics commented "science does know
      > everything in biology does not have to be explained or designed," Ruse
      > said.
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005





      Yahoo! Groups Links









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Skywatch
      Regan, I do not want to send this discussion group off topic, but I will respond to this one. Bill ... From: Regan Power To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Regan,

        I do not want to send this discussion group off topic, but I will respond to this one.

        Bill
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Regan Power
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:12 AM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


        Bill: ...The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't all that sure that
        his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it before molecular biology
        had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected that their science
        would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does not......

        Regan: Yes, it is amazing how Darwin's theory has succeeded in spite of the
        science involved, rather than because of it! :-) But then, it never was
        accepted on proven scientific grounds in the first place, was it? Rather,
        it just appeared "elegant" to a lot of people who wanted to find a
        "scientific" alternative to religious creationism to explain the origin of
        life.
        Bill: You are correct. Darwin's theory was never really proven based on evidence. It was hoped
        evidence would be found. Most of the evidence found did not support Darwin's theory.


        Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
        It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
        (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
        followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
        so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
        very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
        this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
        sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
        earth or universe to produce those kind of changes.

        Regan: Unfortunately, disproving Darwinian evolutionary theory on
        mathematical grounds could be like disproving the Big Bang theory on
        mathematical grounds. Orthodox scientists often react to such challenges by
        inventing some new theoretical principle which "corrects" the mathematics of
        the theory but preserves its basic fallacies intact. Or, they may stick to
        their guns and say, in effect, "Improbable events can happen." They may be
        asking us to swallow a camel with this argument, but which ID-theorists
        would be able to refute it? Unless the ID theorists can show, in rigorous
        mathematical terms, that life most probably has arisen by Intelligent
        Design, then orthodox evolutionary theory seems safe.

        Bill: Regan, it not just disproven by mathematics. In fact the main disproof is that biological
        mechanisms (such as the eye) never appeared in transitional forms showing stages of
        development. The real absurdity is that a partially developed eye serves NO function so
        why would this change be favorable? Biologists do stick to their guns and say "improbable
        events do happen". So do cosmologists when it comes to the Big Bang. However, that
        is not science. It is just stubborn opinion.

        Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
        between scientists is political. I am sure you know this.

        Regan: I do know this, Bill, but whatever appearance I may be giving, my
        basic point is not about the politics that are involved here. It is that
        the proponents of ID appear to be taking on the Goliath of the scientific
        establishment in an oblique manner which does not attack the central
        isssues. They seem unmindful, to me, that what they are disputing is not
        just a particular theory, but the whole worldview on which all western
        civilization and culture have been founded since Newton's day. ID theory is
        fundamentally incompatible with this worldview and in arguing with Darwinism
        (which is compatible with it), the ID-theorists are proposing implicitly
        that this long-established worldview be changed. But they have not made it
        clear yet as to why and how that worldview needs to be changed, nor what
        better worldview exists to replace it. A worldview is essentially a
        philosophical notion, not a scientific one, and by pitching their arguments
        mainly at scientists and by arguing mainly on the scientific level, the
        ID-proponents appear to be ignoring the core-issues that need to be
        addressed as a priority. Consequently, the ID movement in its present form
        seems self-doomed to ineffectuality and failure, to me.

        Bill: It's funny because biological scientists haven't caught up with quantum physics. However,
        I do not believe they are ignoring the core issues. For instance, Phillip E. Johnson who wrote
        the book "Darwin On Trial" also wrote "Reason in the Balance, the Case Against Naturalism
        in Science, Law & Education". Johnson is an attorney. It isn't just Darwinism under fire, it
        is the underpinning philosophy of science known as "naturalism" which states only material
        causes and effects exist in the universe (excludes God, spirits, vital energy etc) and ID
        appears to invoke super-naturalism as a cause. Not allowed in science. The ID movement may fail
        even by attacking core issues, that is at least until a Darwinist produces a major paradigm shift.


        Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
        the opposition is very resistant.
        There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
        Schwartz

        Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
        I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
        explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
        existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
        public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
        science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
        That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
        whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
        for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

        Bill: The important thing is not to stop questioning."

        Regards,
        Regan
        _____


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Bill Hamilton
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:44 PM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Regan Power
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:54 AM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


        Bill,

        Thanks for referring me to De(m?)bski's book, but I'll never get
        time to read it in my present incarnation, you know. I guess I'll just
        have
        to content myself with the knowledge of ID that comes from within and not
        aspire to becoming one of the learnéd literati on the subject.

        Do we have to be so learnéd before we can discuss ID
        intelligently,
        though? Surely, the issues at stake are quite simple, aren't they?
        Orthodox science has always maintained that life did not originate with an
        Intelligent Designer and orthodox religion has always maintained that it
        did. Historically, orthodox science feels it has already settled this
        question, by winning a long and hard-fought intellectual war with religion
        over it, and it is not of a mind to unsettle the question again now just
        to
        please a bunch of eccentric academics, who appear not to have understood
        science properly and who seem to want to reintroduce religious creationism
        back into contemporary scientific thought through the back door. Orthodox
        scientists are not going to have it and they will fight tooth and nail in
        order to stop ID from being, as they see it, surreptitiously foisted onto
        them. They have too much to lose to let that happen.
        Bill: What you say Regan is true. Orthodox scientists will defend Darwin
        almost to dueling pistols. The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't
        all that sure that his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it
        before
        molecular biology had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected
        that
        their science would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does
        not. The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
        It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be
        selected
        (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
        followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
        so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
        very
        long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of this
        happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
        sometimes
        is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the earth or
        universe to produce those kind of changes.


        So, like it or not, the ID-enthusiasts are already involved in a
        ruthless war with orthodox science which is basically political and not
        scientific in nature. And modern intellectual warfare is essentially no
        different to physical warfare, in that what ultimately counts is public
        opinion. Orthodox science enjoys a massive advantage over the ID-movement
        in this respect, because it is already occupying the highest seat of
        intellectual authority in the public mind. In other words, it has already
        won all the arguments in principle, as far as most people are concerned,
        and
        it is already all over bar the shouting. So the ID movement has a long,
        uphill struggle ahead of it to get its points across, both to a
        scientifically illiterate public and to a devoutly skeptical, profoundly
        prejudiced, orthodox scientific community, whose suspicions have already
        been aroused and which has already gone to Defcon 4 over the issue.

        Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
        between scientists is political. I am
        sure you know this.

        As far as I can see, the ID-movement is not effectively addressing
        this imperative need to get its essential point of view across first to
        the
        general public, as preparation for its ultimate confrontation with the
        orthodox scientific camp in a grand, public debate (perhaps like the
        Oxford
        Union debate of the 19th century which overturned creationism and
        established Darwinism originally). In doing this, I think it needs to
        make
        its points with crystal clarity and in simple, non-technical terms which
        are
        idiot-proof, so that people like me, who have never read a single book on
        the subject, can grasp them without really trying. That is a tall order,
        of
        course, but I can see no way of avoiding it if the ID-movement is to
        become
        an effective transformer and enlightener of human minds. As it is, it
        seems
        just to be engaging in scattered ivory-tower debates of an arcane,
        academic
        kind, which can amount to nothing more than minor intellectual skirmishes
        of
        no great public significance. Surely, it will never get anywhere like
        this.

        Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
        the opposition is very resistant.
        There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
        Schwartz


        Psychiatry/ Neuroscience UCLA Department of Psychiatry




        Regan
        _____


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Bill Hamilton
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:40 PM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


        Regan,

        You ought to read Dr. William Debski's book The Design Revolution.

        Dembski, a philosopher/mathematician who has been an important theorist
        for
        the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and
        objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew
        on. The book's timing is appropriate; it is only in the past few years
        that
        ID, initially dismissed by some scientists as "creationism in a cheap
        tuxedo," has also begun to attract a more sophisticated brand of
        criticism.
        These critiques come not only from evolutionary biologists and
        philosophers
        of biology, but also from Christian theologians who have made peace with
        Darwinian evolution.

        He argues every pont that ID has been challenged with in this book.
        It is worth the read as it gives you the criticsims and the answers.

        Bill


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Regan Power
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:20 PM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


        I have a sneaky feeling that the whole ID debate is being argued
        on
        the wrong level. The traditional evolutionary theorists are arguing on
        the
        basis of some arbitrary fundamental assumptions which the proponents of
        ID
        are not actually challenging. Instead, they are attempting to
        demonstrate
        phenomenal evidence for ID when such evidence cannot possibly exist,
        because
        intelligence is not an observable phenomenon - at least, not in the
        context
        of empirical modern science. So although the traditionalists have got
        it
        wrong, the ID-proponents are not showing them how they are wrong and are
        merely adding to their confusion by presenting false evidence for ID,
        which
        the traditionalists are able to refute fairly easily.

        I gather that the traditionalists' argument is basically that
        the
        orderly phenomena of life can have come out of the chaos of the
        pre-biological universe spontaneously and without the need for an
        original
        organising intelligence. Then they cite Occam's Razor to justify their
        rejection of the ID-proposition that an original organising intelligence
        nevertheless existed. And indeed, this rejection seems perfectly
        correct
        from the standpoint of modern science, while the position of the
        advocates
        of ID appears unscientific, as well as mistaken.

        However, we can find a contradiction in the traditionalist
        argument,
        which becomes apparent when we ask how traditional evolutionary theory
        explains where the conscious intelligence in living systems originally
        came
        from. The traditionalists have no honest answer to this. Their
        standard
        "answer" is a form of intellectual sleight-of-hand, which consists of
        the
        assertion that intelligence "emerged" out of the sheer complexity of
        interactions between myriads of purely unconscious material particles
        and
        their associated energy-fields in brain-tissues. But this is really a
        non-answer, which totally fails to explain how conscious intelligence
        could
        "emerge" in a medium which did not possess it to begin with. It is
        simply
        an appeal to the miraculous and is void of logic.

        So it appears to me that the traditionalist theory fails to
        explain
        all that it needs to explain and that the traditionalists have invoked
        Occam's Razor a bit too soon. They have strikingly failed, in fact, to
        explain how conscious intelligence could arise in a fundamentally
        unconscious universe and until they can explain this, their theory is
        intellectually bankrupt, in my view. The ID-proponents, on the other
        hand,
        seem strongly placed, to me, to explain how intelligence arises - not in
        a
        fundamentally unintelligent universe, of course, but in a fundamentally
        intelligent one.

        Regan
        _____


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: DRxDON
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:58 PM
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


        Bill,

        OK, according to the defined parameters here, there is a definite
        object.
        I
        guess then,
        that I would suggest "intelligent self-organization" as my *prefered*
        way
        of
        seeing things,
        with all of the constituent parts heving "intelligence" and
        "consciousness".
        Of course,
        this gets too much into the realm of metaphysics and away from anything
        that
        current science
        can "prove" or even hypothesise. I just feel that if scientists changed
        their mindset to one
        closer to that of intelligent self-organization, they would then begin
        the
        process of
        discovery.

        Don


        Bill Hamilton wrote:
        >
        > Don,
        >
        > If you had an intelligent design drawn by an engineer for a car on
        > blueprint paper,
        > how is the engineer the intelligent design? He/she is the designer.
        > Non-dualism is
        > fine, but not in this context as you have already specified an object.
        > The intelligent
        > design itself may be in the mind of the designer. The ID premise is
        to
        > find evidence
        > of design (allegedly), not to find out the identity of the designer.
        > Following this,
        > a competing proposition is self-organization. So far, no one has
        proved
        > anything
        > so far except that Darwin's theories are lacking.
        >
        > Bill
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: DRxDON
        > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:27 PM
        > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin
        >
        > Why does "intelligent design" necessitate the existence of a
        *separate*
        > "intelligent
        > designer"? I don't think any real progress will be made in the
        > discovery of the origin
        > and development of nature until this Wetern dualism between subject
        and
        > object is
        > reconciled. The design is *ItSELF* intelligent! ...at ALL levels
        of
        > being.
        >
        > Don
        >
        > Light Eye wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Friends,
        > >
        > > http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=18444
        > >
        > > Love and Light.
        > >
        > > David
        > >
        > > Intelligent design confronts Darwin
        > > By Claire LeFevre
        > > News Writer
        > > 2/20/2005
        > >
        > > Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, shared his
        thoughts
        on
        > biochemical evolution and his disageements with many aspects of
        Darwin's
        > theory of human
        > evolution
        > > on Feb. 17 in Linderman Library.
        > >
        > > "Intelligent design is not a mystical conclusion and it is very
        good
        > at recognizing design and the physical structure of a system," he
        said.
        > >
        > > Rather than Darwin's theory of evolution, Behe supports the
        concept
        of
        > intelligent design, which maintains that the universe was designed by
        an
        > intelligent agent,
        > rather
        > > than by an accident. The intelligent design theory is one of
        > irreducible compexlity that tries to explain evolutionary production
        as
        a
        > machine, Behe said.
        > >
        > > To explain this idea better Behe gave an example of comparing the
        > mountain ranges in Idaho versus Mt. Rushmore.
        > >
        > > "For the mountains in Idaho we ask the question, how did they
        > originate?" he said. "What in nature made them evolve into the masses
        that
        > they are today? For Mt.
        > Rushmore
        > > when we ask the same question, how did they originate? We come up
        with
        > a very different answer which includes the effects of intelligence.
        There
        > were other resources
        > used
        > > to have Mt. Rushmore look the way it does today, those resources
        > include the use of machines."
        > >
        > > Behe then turned to another point in his oratry.
        > >
        > > "Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed, he said. We
        can
        > find these designs in the simplest parts of our world, that of cell."
        > >
        > > Behe referred to Bruce Alberts, a well-known name in the field of
        > biology who concurs with him. Behe quoted Alberts:
        > >
        > > "We underestimate the cells, they are protein machines, machines
        > within machines," he said.
        > >
        > > Behe's explanation that cells are "machines" was meant to be taken
        in
        > the literal sense. Behe explained that every part of every cell has a
        > function, and if one piece
        > of
        > > that cell were missing or "out of order" that would mean the cell
        as
        a
        > whole would not be able to function. Each and every part of the cell
        is
        > needed, he said. It
        > works
        > > as a whole, as one entity, to complete its function properly.
        > >
        > > He explained this idea further by using a mousetrap as an example.
        It
        > is a system in which all the parts interact with one another to
        produce
        an
        > effect. Without each
        > part
        > > working together there is no effect, thus the mousetrap would not
        be
        > able to complete its function, which is to catch the mice.
        > >
        > > Behe said this idea would be "a headache for the Darwin Theory."
        > >
        > > How one recognizes this design is to look at the interaction
        between
        > the parts of the whole, Behe said.
        > >
        > > One of Behe's main critiques of Darwin theory of evolution was
        that
        it
        > lacked explanations and was based solely on speculation.
        > >
        > > "Darwin rests on imagination," he said. For Darwin there are no
        > explanations, just speculation. "Science should follow evidence and
        you
        > can't worry about the
        > > implications. Darwin never gives us an answer," Behe said.
        > >
        > > The argument for intelligent design does not work for every aspect
        of
        > Darwin's theory of evolution, but it gives a sense of reason and logic
        > that humans can look for
        > to
        > > get answers for how things have come to be in our complex world,
        Behe
        > said.
        > >
        > > Behe based his lecture on a novel he wrote that came to the
        publics'
        > attention in 1997. The novel 'Darwin's Black Box,' has been very
        popular
        > in scientific and
        > academic
        > > circles.
        > >
        > > Behe has been very involved in the world's research on the theory
        of
        > biochemical evolution.
        > >
        > > In the novel, he challenges the theory that many have believed for
        > decades regarding the origin of the species and natural selection.
        > >
        > > Behe presented his case to a diverse audience. There were
        > undergraduate and graduate students in attendance as well as teachers
        from
        > outside of the Lehigh community
        > who
        > > were interested in learning more about intelligent design.
        > >
        > > "[I am] searching for an alternative theory for human evolution
        > myself, out of my own curiosity and I was interested in what the
        professor
        > had to say about his
        > theory,"
        > > said Sun Hwang, '07, a student who attended the lecture.
        > >
        > > "I am a big believer of intelligent design," Sean McKeever, '08,
        said.
        > "But never got a chance to read the books, so I was curious to hear
        what
        > Behe had to say about
        > the
        > > topic."
        > >
        > > Other audience members were just taking advantage of the many
        speakers
        > that have come to Lehigh this semester.
        > >
        > > "A great deal of knowledge can be learned from these types of
        lectures
        > and we have so many kinds of opportunities like this on our campus,"
        Rob
        > Guzzon, '06, said.
        > >
        > > "I just wish more people would take advantage of them and want to
        > learn more about these types of things."
        > >
        > > Some scientists, such as Neil Greenspan and Michael Ruse disagree
        with
        > Behe and his theories. They agree with Darwin's theory.
        > >
        > > In response to Behe's novel, critics commented "science does know
        > everything in biology does not have to be explained or designed," Ruse
        > said.
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------



        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufodiscussion/

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005

        ----------

        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Regan Power
        That s an interesting mention of the Cornish Rex Cat, Jahnets. I live in a region of the UK where sightings of strange beasts of one kind or another are
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          That's an interesting mention of the Cornish Rex Cat, Jahnets. I
          live in a region of the UK where sightings of "strange beasts" of one kind
          or another are reported several times a year, on average. We have exotic
          big cats, like lynxes and pumas only different, living wild out here and a
          large, dog-like animal was photographed in this area last year too. What
          with Nessie and all the other fabulous creatures that apparently are living
          here quite successfully, it is a wonder to me that scientists have not
          cordoned off Britain as a nature reserve for "weird creatures from time and
          space".

          Hang on a minute, though. Perhaps they have done! I must admit
          that I am a bit of an oddball myself and most of the people I know here are
          somewhat unusual as well. Hmmn, is there something that you foreign
          nationals have not been telling me???.........................!!!

          Regan
          _____


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Jahnets
          To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:21 PM
          Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


          "Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
          It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
          (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
          followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
          so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
          very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
          this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
          sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
          earth or universe to produce those kind of changes."

          Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
          I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
          explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
          existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
          public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
          science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
          That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
          whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
          for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

          Jahnets: Have you ever read up on the Cornish Rex cat??? I owned one so
          have. They started from a mutation in a farm cat. The owners had the smarts
          to try and keep the line going. Soooo I present to you yet another example
          of how we also were made... Both are correct... As with the Cornish Rex,
          what started as a mutation was helped along by an alien being(we are in fact
          a different being than the cat). What is beginning to amuse me is that it
          seems so obvious to me and yet others reject it out of hand. God or All
          That Is is interacting with us by providing mutations that we then adjust to
          this dimension. Why is humanity so tied to being extra special that they
          can't see how special they are??? I see the problem with the establishment
          being one of not wanting to admit that for a couple thousand years they have
          been duped. It is the ultimate transgression and will probably leave people
          shocked and they simply won't know who to trust anymore... Afterall they
          have been raised with these premises and fought wars over these premises and
          the lists go on and on... To suddenly find out that both sides are right
          will be a shock for some, but there is only one way to do it. I would think
          that TPTB would want the trust of the peoples as it makes it so much easier
          to deal with. So if they came out with the truth that both sides are right,
          it would show the people that they were in fact capabile of giving them the
          truth... After a brief shocked pause trust would follow as the people would
          think they knew what they were talking about even though they(the people)
          personally hadn't figured it out completely yet... They would be hailed in
          the history books for millions of years...ha ha Ok so now here I have given
          them the answer to their dilema, lets see if they are ready to take it...ha
          ha



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
          Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:12 AM
          To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



          Bill: ...The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't all that sure that
          his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it before molecular biology
          had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected that their science
          would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does not......

          Regan: Yes, it is amazing how Darwin's theory has succeeded in spite of the
          science involved, rather than because of it! :-) But then, it never was
          accepted on proven scientific grounds in the first place, was it? Rather,
          it just appeared "elegant" to a lot of people who wanted to find a
          "scientific" alternative to religious creationism to explain the origin of
          life.

          Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
          It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
          (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
          followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
          so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
          very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
          this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
          sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
          earth or universe to produce those kind of changes.

          Regan: Unfortunately, disproving Darwinian evolutionary theory on
          mathematical grounds could be like disproving the Big Bang theory on
          mathematical grounds. Orthodox scientists often react to such challenges by
          inventing some new theoretical principle which "corrects" the mathematics of
          the theory but preserves its basic fallacies intact. Or, they may stick to
          their guns and say, in effect, "Improbable events can happen." They may be
          asking us to swallow a camel with this argument, but which ID-theorists
          would be able to refute it? Unless the ID theorists can show, in rigorous
          mathematical terms, that life most probably has arisen by Intelligent
          Design, then orthodox evolutionary theory seems safe.

          Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
          between scientists is political. I am sure you know this.

          Regan: I do know this, Bill, but whatever appearance I may be giving, my
          basic point is not about the politics that are involved here. It is that
          the proponents of ID appear to be taking on the Goliath of the scientific
          establishment in an oblique manner which does not attack the central
          isssues. They seem unmindful, to me, that what they are disputing is not
          just a particular theory, but the whole worldview on which all western
          civilization and culture have been founded since Newton's day. ID theory is
          fundamentally incompatible with this worldview and in arguing with Darwinism
          (which is compatible with it), the ID-theorists are proposing implicitly
          that this long-established worldview be changed. But they have not made it
          clear yet as to why and how that worldview needs to be changed, nor what
          better worldview exists to replace it. A worldview is essentially a
          philosophical notion, not a scientific one, and by pitching their arguments
          mainly at scientists and by arguing mainly on the scientific level, the
          ID-proponents appear to be ignoring the core-issues that need to be
          addressed as a priority. Consequently, the ID movement in its present form
          seems self-doomed to ineffectuality and failure, to me.

          Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
          the opposition is very resistant.
          There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
          Schwartz

          Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
          I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
          explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
          existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
          public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
          science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
          That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
          whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
          for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

          Regards,
          Regan
          _____



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005
        • Regan Power
          Bill, I do not want to send the group off topic either, but I think the subject of modern science s paradigm and worldview is relevant to UFOs and the
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,

            I do not want to send the group off topic either, but I think the
            subject of modern science's paradigm and worldview is relevant to UFOs and
            the paranormal generally, as these subjects are often evaluated and judged
            according to modern scientific criteria.

            Bill: Regan, (Darwinism is) not just disproven by mathematics. In fact the
            main disproof is that biological mechanisms (such as the eye) never appeared
            in transitional forms showing stages of development. The real absurdity
            is that a partially developed eye serves NO function so why would this
            change be favorable? Biologists do stick to their guns and say "improbable
            events do happen". So do cosmologists when it comes to the Big Bang.
            However, that is not science. It is just stubborn opinion.

            Regan: I agree, Bill. I think that Darwinists have not yet grasped the
            holistic nature of organic development and are still thinking in terms of
            arithmetic assemblies of sub-systems to make up a whole organism. They have
            not understood that the wholeness of the nuclear programs in organic beings
            implies that they will evolve in sudden, discrete steps from one state of
            wholeness to another and not along continuous curves, which would imply the
            creation of intermediate forms, as you say.

            But even if Darwinists were to grasp this principle of holistic
            evolution, it seems to me that they still would not necessarily have
            accepted Intelligent Design. The principle of wholeness is not necessarily
            intelligent. And merely proving that Darwinism as it presently stands is
            wrong does not necessarily prove that ID is right, I'm afraid. I think ID
            must be proven on its own merits, if it is to be proven at all.

            Bill: It's funny because biological scientists haven't caught up with
            quantum physics. However, I do not believe they are ignoring the core
            issues. For instance, Phillip E. Johnson who wrote the book "Darwin On
            Trial" also wrote "Reason in the Balance, the Case Against Naturalism in
            Science, Law & Education". Johnson is an attorney. It isn't just Darwinism
            under fire, it is the underpinning philosophy of science known as
            "naturalism" which states only material causes and effects exist in the
            universe (excludes God, spirits, vital energy etc) and ID appears to invoke
            super-naturalism as a cause. Not allowed in science. The ID movement may
            fail even by attacking core issues, that is at least until a Darwinist
            produces a major paradigm shift.

            Regan: I think that, in order to be able to prove their case, ID-theorists
            need to show that ID provides a better causal explanation for the phenomena
            of life than "naturalism" (which sounds like materialism by another name, to
            me) can do. Darwinists are already arguing that it does not because it is
            invoking a principle which is not needed to explain the phenomena of life.
            (Occam's Razor) Therefore, the onus seems to rest squarely on ID-theorists
            to show how the principle of ID is needed to explain them.

            Bill: The important thing is not to stop questioning."

            Regan: True, but I think the proponents of ID also have to provide some
            answers which prove the superior value and validity of ID-theory over
            established naturalism. Otherwise we will just have a lot of questioning
            people who cannot believe in naturalism any more, but who have nothing
            better to believe in either. That would be chaos, not a coherent movement
            for evolutionary intellectual change.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Skywatch
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:04 AM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            Regan,

            I do not want to send this discussion group off topic, but I will respond to
            this one.

            Bill
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Regan Power
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:12 AM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            Bill: ...The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't all that sure
            that
            his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it before molecular biology
            had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected that their science
            would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does not......

            Regan: Yes, it is amazing how Darwin's theory has succeeded in spite of
            the
            science involved, rather than because of it! :-) But then, it never was
            accepted on proven scientific grounds in the first place, was it? Rather,
            it just appeared "elegant" to a lot of people who wanted to find a
            "scientific" alternative to religious creationism to explain the origin of
            life.
            Bill: You are correct. Darwin's theory was never really proven based on
            evidence. It was hoped
            evidence would be found. Most of the evidence found did not support
            Darwin's theory.


            Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
            It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be
            selected
            (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
            followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
            so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
            very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
            this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
            sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
            earth or universe to produce those kind of changes.

            Regan: Unfortunately, disproving Darwinian evolutionary theory on
            mathematical grounds could be like disproving the Big Bang theory on
            mathematical grounds. Orthodox scientists often react to such challenges
            by
            inventing some new theoretical principle which "corrects" the mathematics
            of
            the theory but preserves its basic fallacies intact. Or, they may stick
            to
            their guns and say, in effect, "Improbable events can happen." They may
            be
            asking us to swallow a camel with this argument, but which ID-theorists
            would be able to refute it? Unless the ID theorists can show, in rigorous
            mathematical terms, that life most probably has arisen by Intelligent
            Design, then orthodox evolutionary theory seems safe.

            Bill: Regan, it not just disproven by mathematics. In fact the main
            disproof is that biological
            mechanisms (such as the eye) never appeared in transitional forms showing
            stages of
            development. The real absurdity is that a partially developed eye serves
            NO function so
            why would this change be favorable? Biologists do stick to their guns
            and say "improbable
            events do happen". So do cosmologists when it comes to the Big Bang.
            However, that
            is not science. It is just stubborn opinion.

            Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
            between scientists is political. I am sure you know this.

            Regan: I do know this, Bill, but whatever appearance I may be giving, my
            basic point is not about the politics that are involved here. It is that
            the proponents of ID appear to be taking on the Goliath of the scientific
            establishment in an oblique manner which does not attack the central
            isssues. They seem unmindful, to me, that what they are disputing is not
            just a particular theory, but the whole worldview on which all western
            civilization and culture have been founded since Newton's day. ID theory
            is
            fundamentally incompatible with this worldview and in arguing with
            Darwinism
            (which is compatible with it), the ID-theorists are proposing implicitly
            that this long-established worldview be changed. But they have not made
            it
            clear yet as to why and how that worldview needs to be changed, nor what
            better worldview exists to replace it. A worldview is essentially a
            philosophical notion, not a scientific one, and by pitching their
            arguments
            mainly at scientists and by arguing mainly on the scientific level, the
            ID-proponents appear to be ignoring the core-issues that need to be
            addressed as a priority. Consequently, the ID movement in its present
            form
            seems self-doomed to ineffectuality and failure, to me.

            Bill: It's funny because biological scientists haven't caught up with
            quantum physics. However,
            I do not believe they are ignoring the core issues. For instance, Phillip
            E. Johnson who wrote
            the book "Darwin On Trial" also wrote "Reason in the Balance, the Case
            Against Naturalism
            in Science, Law & Education". Johnson is an attorney. It isn't just
            Darwinism under fire, it
            is the underpinning philosophy of science known as "naturalism" which
            states only material
            causes and effects exist in the universe (excludes God, spirits, vital
            energy etc) and ID
            appears to invoke super-naturalism as a cause. Not allowed in science.
            The ID movement may fail
            even by attacking core issues, that is at least until a Darwinist produces
            a major paradigm shift.


            Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
            the opposition is very resistant.
            There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
            Schwartz

            Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
            I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
            explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
            existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
            public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of
            orthodox
            science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean
            Revolution.
            That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
            whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well
            prepared
            for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

            Bill: The important thing is not to stop questioning."

            Regards,
            Regan
            _____


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Bill Hamilton
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:44 PM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Regan Power
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:54 AM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            Bill,

            Thanks for referring me to De(m?)bski's book, but I'll never get
            time to read it in my present incarnation, you know. I guess I'll just
            have
            to content myself with the knowledge of ID that comes from within and
            not
            aspire to becoming one of the learnéd literati on the subject.

            Do we have to be so learnéd before we can discuss ID
            intelligently,
            though? Surely, the issues at stake are quite simple, aren't they?
            Orthodox science has always maintained that life did not originate with
            an
            Intelligent Designer and orthodox religion has always maintained that it
            did. Historically, orthodox science feels it has already settled this
            question, by winning a long and hard-fought intellectual war with
            religion
            over it, and it is not of a mind to unsettle the question again now just
            to
            please a bunch of eccentric academics, who appear not to have understood
            science properly and who seem to want to reintroduce religious
            creationism
            back into contemporary scientific thought through the back door.
            Orthodox
            scientists are not going to have it and they will fight tooth and nail
            in
            order to stop ID from being, as they see it, surreptitiously foisted
            onto
            them. They have too much to lose to let that happen.
            Bill: What you say Regan is true. Orthodox scientists will defend
            Darwin
            almost to dueling pistols. The real problem begins with Darwin who
            wasn't
            all that sure that his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it
            before
            molecular biology had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected
            that
            their science would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it
            does
            not. The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
            It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be
            selected
            (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and
            be
            followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium
            population
            so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
            very
            long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of this
            happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
            sometimes
            is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the earth or
            universe to produce those kind of changes.


            So, like it or not, the ID-enthusiasts are already involved in a
            ruthless war with orthodox science which is basically political and not
            scientific in nature. And modern intellectual warfare is essentially no
            different to physical warfare, in that what ultimately counts is public
            opinion. Orthodox science enjoys a massive advantage over the
            ID-movement
            in this respect, because it is already occupying the highest seat of
            intellectual authority in the public mind. In other words, it has
            already
            won all the arguments in principle, as far as most people are concerned,
            and
            it is already all over bar the shouting. So the ID movement has a long,
            uphill struggle ahead of it to get its points across, both to a
            scientifically illiterate public and to a devoutly skeptical, profoundly
            prejudiced, orthodox scientific community, whose suspicions have already
            been aroused and which has already gone to Defcon 4 over the issue.

            Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
            between scientists is political. I am
            sure you know this.

            As far as I can see, the ID-movement is not effectively
            addressing
            this imperative need to get its essential point of view across first to
            the
            general public, as preparation for its ultimate confrontation with the
            orthodox scientific camp in a grand, public debate (perhaps like the
            Oxford
            Union debate of the 19th century which overturned creationism and
            established Darwinism originally). In doing this, I think it needs to
            make
            its points with crystal clarity and in simple, non-technical terms which
            are
            idiot-proof, so that people like me, who have never read a single book
            on
            the subject, can grasp them without really trying. That is a tall
            order,
            of
            course, but I can see no way of avoiding it if the ID-movement is to
            become
            an effective transformer and enlightener of human minds. As it is, it
            seems
            just to be engaging in scattered ivory-tower debates of an arcane,
            academic
            kind, which can amount to nothing more than minor intellectual
            skirmishes
            of
            no great public significance. Surely, it will never get anywhere like
            this.

            Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc,
            but
            the opposition is very resistant.
            There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
            Schwartz


            Psychiatry/ Neuroscience UCLA Department of Psychiatry




            Regan
            _____


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Bill Hamilton
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:40 PM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            Regan,

            You ought to read Dr. William Debski's book The Design Revolution.

            Dembski, a philosopher/mathematician who has been an important theorist
            for
            the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and
            objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to
            chew
            on. The book's timing is appropriate; it is only in the past few years
            that
            ID, initially dismissed by some scientists as "creationism in a cheap
            tuxedo," has also begun to attract a more sophisticated brand of
            criticism.
            These critiques come not only from evolutionary biologists and
            philosophers
            of biology, but also from Christian theologians who have made peace with
            Darwinian evolution.

            He argues every pont that ID has been challenged with in this book.
            It is worth the read as it gives you the criticsims and the answers.

            Bill


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Regan Power
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:20 PM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            I have a sneaky feeling that the whole ID debate is being
            argued
            on
            the wrong level. The traditional evolutionary theorists are arguing
            on
            the
            basis of some arbitrary fundamental assumptions which the proponents
            of
            ID
            are not actually challenging. Instead, they are attempting to
            demonstrate
            phenomenal evidence for ID when such evidence cannot possibly exist,
            because
            intelligence is not an observable phenomenon - at least, not in the
            context
            of empirical modern science. So although the traditionalists have got
            it
            wrong, the ID-proponents are not showing them how they are wrong and
            are
            merely adding to their confusion by presenting false evidence for ID,
            which
            the traditionalists are able to refute fairly easily.

            I gather that the traditionalists' argument is basically that
            the
            orderly phenomena of life can have come out of the chaos of the
            pre-biological universe spontaneously and without the need for an
            original
            organising intelligence. Then they cite Occam's Razor to justify
            their
            rejection of the ID-proposition that an original organising
            intelligence
            nevertheless existed. And indeed, this rejection seems perfectly
            correct
            from the standpoint of modern science, while the position of the
            advocates
            of ID appears unscientific, as well as mistaken.

            However, we can find a contradiction in the traditionalist
            argument,
            which becomes apparent when we ask how traditional evolutionary theory
            explains where the conscious intelligence in living systems originally
            came
            from. The traditionalists have no honest answer to this. Their
            standard
            "answer" is a form of intellectual sleight-of-hand, which consists of
            the
            assertion that intelligence "emerged" out of the sheer complexity of
            interactions between myriads of purely unconscious material particles
            and
            their associated energy-fields in brain-tissues. But this is really a
            non-answer, which totally fails to explain how conscious intelligence
            could
            "emerge" in a medium which did not possess it to begin with. It is
            simply
            an appeal to the miraculous and is void of logic.

            So it appears to me that the traditionalist theory fails to
            explain
            all that it needs to explain and that the traditionalists have invoked
            Occam's Razor a bit too soon. They have strikingly failed, in fact,
            to
            explain how conscious intelligence could arise in a fundamentally
            unconscious universe and until they can explain this, their theory is
            intellectually bankrupt, in my view. The ID-proponents, on the other
            hand,
            seem strongly placed, to me, to explain how intelligence arises - not
            in
            a
            fundamentally unintelligent universe, of course, but in a
            fundamentally
            intelligent one.

            Regan
            _____


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: DRxDON
            To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:58 PM
            Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


            Bill,

            OK, according to the defined parameters here, there is a definite
            object.
            I
            guess then,
            that I would suggest "intelligent self-organization" as my *prefered*
            way
            of
            seeing things,
            with all of the constituent parts heving "intelligence" and
            "consciousness".
            Of course,
            this gets too much into the realm of metaphysics and away from
            anything
            that
            current science
            can "prove" or even hypothesise. I just feel that if scientists
            changed
            their mindset to one
            closer to that of intelligent self-organization, they would then begin
            the
            process of
            discovery.

            Don


            Bill Hamilton wrote:
            >
            > Don,
            >
            > If you had an intelligent design drawn by an engineer for a car on
            > blueprint paper,
            > how is the engineer the intelligent design? He/she is the designer.
            > Non-dualism is
            > fine, but not in this context as you have already specified an
            object.
            > The intelligent
            > design itself may be in the mind of the designer. The ID premise is
            to
            > find evidence
            > of design (allegedly), not to find out the identity of the designer.
            > Following this,
            > a competing proposition is self-organization. So far, no one has
            proved
            > anything
            > so far except that Darwin's theories are lacking.
            >
            > Bill
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: DRxDON
            > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:27 PM
            > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin
            >
            > Why does "intelligent design" necessitate the existence of a
            *separate*
            > "intelligent
            > designer"? I don't think any real progress will be made in the
            > discovery of the origin
            > and development of nature until this Wetern dualism between
            subject
            and
            > object is
            > reconciled. The design is *ItSELF* intelligent! ...at ALL levels
            of
            > being.
            >
            > Don
            >
            > Light Eye wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear Friends,
            > >
            > > http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=18444
            > >
            > > Love and Light.
            > >
            > > David
            > >
            > > Intelligent design confronts Darwin
            > > By Claire LeFevre
            > > News Writer
            > > 2/20/2005
            > >
            > > Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, shared his
            thoughts
            on
            > biochemical evolution and his disageements with many aspects of
            Darwin's
            > theory of human
            > evolution
            > > on Feb. 17 in Linderman Library.
            > >
            > > "Intelligent design is not a mystical conclusion and it is very
            good
            > at recognizing design and the physical structure of a system," he
            said.
            > >
            > > Rather than Darwin's theory of evolution, Behe supports the
            concept
            of
            > intelligent design, which maintains that the universe was designed
            by
            an
            > intelligent agent,
            > rather
            > > than by an accident. The intelligent design theory is one of
            > irreducible compexlity that tries to explain evolutionary production
            as
            a
            > machine, Behe said.
            > >
            > > To explain this idea better Behe gave an example of comparing
            the
            > mountain ranges in Idaho versus Mt. Rushmore.
            > >
            > > "For the mountains in Idaho we ask the question, how did they
            > originate?" he said. "What in nature made them evolve into the
            masses
            that
            > they are today? For Mt.
            > Rushmore
            > > when we ask the same question, how did they originate? We come
            up
            with
            > a very different answer which includes the effects of intelligence.
            There
            > were other resources
            > used
            > > to have Mt. Rushmore look the way it does today, those resources
            > include the use of machines."
            > >
            > > Behe then turned to another point in his oratry.
            > >
            > > "Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed, he said. We
            can
            > find these designs in the simplest parts of our world, that of
            cell."
            > >
            > > Behe referred to Bruce Alberts, a well-known name in the field
            of
            > biology who concurs with him. Behe quoted Alberts:
            > >
            > > "We underestimate the cells, they are protein machines, machines
            > within machines," he said.
            > >
            > > Behe's explanation that cells are "machines" was meant to be
            taken
            in
            > the literal sense. Behe explained that every part of every cell has
            a
            > function, and if one piece
            > of
            > > that cell were missing or "out of order" that would mean the
            cell
            as
            a
            > whole would not be able to function. Each and every part of the cell
            is
            > needed, he said. It
            > works
            > > as a whole, as one entity, to complete its function properly.
            > >
            > > He explained this idea further by using a mousetrap as an
            example.
            It
            > is a system in which all the parts interact with one another to
            produce
            an
            > effect. Without each
            > part
            > > working together there is no effect, thus the mousetrap would
            not
            be
            > able to complete its function, which is to catch the mice.
            > >
            > > Behe said this idea would be "a headache for the Darwin Theory."
            > >
            > > How one recognizes this design is to look at the interaction
            between
            > the parts of the whole, Behe said.
            > >
            > > One of Behe's main critiques of Darwin theory of evolution was
            that
            it
            > lacked explanations and was based solely on speculation.
            > >
            > > "Darwin rests on imagination," he said. For Darwin there are no
            > explanations, just speculation. "Science should follow evidence and
            you
            > can't worry about the
            > > implications. Darwin never gives us an answer," Behe said.
            > >
            > > The argument for intelligent design does not work for every
            aspect
            of
            > Darwin's theory of evolution, but it gives a sense of reason and
            logic
            > that humans can look for
            > to
            > > get answers for how things have come to be in our complex world,
            Behe
            > said.
            > >
            > > Behe based his lecture on a novel he wrote that came to the
            publics'
            > attention in 1997. The novel 'Darwin's Black Box,' has been very
            popular
            > in scientific and
            > academic
            > > circles.
            > >
            > > Behe has been very involved in the world's research on the
            theory
            of
            > biochemical evolution.
            > >
            > > In the novel, he challenges the theory that many have believed
            for
            > decades regarding the origin of the species and natural selection.
            > >
            > > Behe presented his case to a diverse audience. There were
            > undergraduate and graduate students in attendance as well as
            teachers
            from
            > outside of the Lehigh community
            > who
            > > were interested in learning more about intelligent design.
            > >
            > > "[I am] searching for an alternative theory for human evolution
            > myself, out of my own curiosity and I was interested in what the
            professor
            > had to say about his
            > theory,"
            > > said Sun Hwang, '07, a student who attended the lecture.
            > >
            > > "I am a big believer of intelligent design," Sean McKeever, '08,
            said.
            > "But never got a chance to read the books, so I was curious to hear
            what
            > Behe had to say about
            > the
            > > topic."
            > >
            > > Other audience members were just taking advantage of the many
            speakers
            > that have come to Lehigh this semester.
            > >
            > > "A great deal of knowledge can be learned from these types of
            lectures
            > and we have so many kinds of opportunities like this on our campus,"
            Rob
            > Guzzon, '06, said.
            > >
            > > "I just wish more people would take advantage of them and want
            to
            > learn more about these types of things."
            > >
            > > Some scientists, such as Neil Greenspan and Michael Ruse
            disagree
            with
            > Behe and his theories. They agree with Darwin's theory.
            > >
            > > In response to Behe's novel, critics commented "science does
            know
            > everything in biology does not have to be explained or designed,"
            Ruse
            > said.
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            > ---------------------------------------------------------------



            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT





            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufodiscussion/

            b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005

            ----------

            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT






            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufodiscussion/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005



            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005
          • Jahnets
            Ha ha ha... Only my cat, Dharma, was too cool... He would run through the room and literally bounce off the couch and the wall right in front of you so fast it
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Ha ha ha... Only my cat, Dharma, was too cool... He would run through the
              room and literally bounce off the couch and the wall right in front of you
              so fast it was like a ball...They call the Cornish Rex's clowns and they
              are... He was black, silver and white and curly all over... He looked kind
              of like a mix between a weasel and a cat because he was so long necked, and
              his face had the shape of a siamese...He was something else, a real old
              soul... as you can tell I miss him.



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
              Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:15 PM
              To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



              That's an interesting mention of the Cornish Rex Cat, Jahnets. I
              live in a region of the UK where sightings of "strange beasts" of one kind
              or another are reported several times a year, on average. We have exotic
              big cats, like lynxes and pumas only different, living wild out here and a
              large, dog-like animal was photographed in this area last year too. What
              with Nessie and all the other fabulous creatures that apparently are living
              here quite successfully, it is a wonder to me that scientists have not
              cordoned off Britain as a nature reserve for "weird creatures from time and
              space".

              Hang on a minute, though. Perhaps they have done! I must admit
              that I am a bit of an oddball myself and most of the people I know here are
              somewhat unusual as well. Hmmn, is there something that you foreign
              nationals have not been telling me???.........................!!!

              Regan
              _____


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Jahnets
              To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:21 PM
              Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin


              "Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
              It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
              (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
              followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
              so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
              very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
              this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
              sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
              earth or universe to produce those kind of changes."

              Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
              I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
              explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
              existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
              public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
              science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
              That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
              whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
              for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

              Jahnets: Have you ever read up on the Cornish Rex cat??? I owned one so
              have. They started from a mutation in a farm cat. The owners had the smarts
              to try and keep the line going. Soooo I present to you yet another example
              of how we also were made... Both are correct... As with the Cornish Rex,
              what started as a mutation was helped along by an alien being(we are in fact
              a different being than the cat). What is beginning to amuse me is that it
              seems so obvious to me and yet others reject it out of hand. God or All
              That Is is interacting with us by providing mutations that we then adjust to
              this dimension. Why is humanity so tied to being extra special that they
              can't see how special they are??? I see the problem with the establishment
              being one of not wanting to admit that for a couple thousand years they have
              been duped. It is the ultimate transgression and will probably leave people
              shocked and they simply won't know who to trust anymore... Afterall they
              have been raised with these premises and fought wars over these premises and
              the lists go on and on... To suddenly find out that both sides are right
              will be a shock for some, but there is only one way to do it. I would think
              that TPTB would want the trust of the peoples as it makes it so much easier
              to deal with. So if they came out with the truth that both sides are right,
              it would show the people that they were in fact capabile of giving them the
              truth... After a brief shocked pause trust would follow as the people would
              think they knew what they were talking about even though they(the people)
              personally hadn't figured it out completely yet... They would be hailed in
              the history books for millions of years...ha ha Ok so now here I have given
              them the answer to their dilema, lets see if they are ready to take it...ha
              ha



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
              Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 6:12 AM
              To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Intelligent Design Confronts Darwin



              Bill: ...The real problem begins with Darwin who wasn't all that sure that
              his theory ruled out design as he had proposed it before molecular biology
              had come into its own. Molecular biologists expected that their science
              would confirm Darwin's Macroevolutionary theory, but it does not......

              Regan: Yes, it is amazing how Darwin's theory has succeeded in spite of the
              science involved, rather than because of it! :-) But then, it never was
              accepted on proven scientific grounds in the first place, was it? Rather,
              it just appeared "elegant" to a lot of people who wanted to find a
              "scientific" alternative to religious creationism to explain the origin of
              life.

              Bill: The real problem revolves around the word "chance" and "mutation".
              It is highly improbable that by chance a favorable mutation will be selected
              (and mutations do not add information to the genome in most cases) and be
              followed by another favorable mutation x a thousand in a medium population
              so that the successive microevolutionary changes will succeed in time (a
              very long time) in producing a macroevolutionary change. The chances of
              this happening (especially for genes that are encoded to produce proteins)
              sometimes is 1 to 10 (21st power)! There hasn't been enough time for the
              earth or universe to produce those kind of changes.

              Regan: Unfortunately, disproving Darwinian evolutionary theory on
              mathematical grounds could be like disproving the Big Bang theory on
              mathematical grounds. Orthodox scientists often react to such challenges by
              inventing some new theoretical principle which "corrects" the mathematics of
              the theory but preserves its basic fallacies intact. Or, they may stick to
              their guns and say, in effect, "Improbable events can happen." They may be
              asking us to swallow a camel with this argument, but which ID-theorists
              would be able to refute it? Unless the ID theorists can show, in rigorous
              mathematical terms, that life most probably has arisen by Intelligent
              Design, then orthodox evolutionary theory seems safe.

              Bill: I hate to tell you this Regan but most scientific battles even
              between scientists is political. I am sure you know this.

              Regan: I do know this, Bill, but whatever appearance I may be giving, my
              basic point is not about the politics that are involved here. It is that
              the proponents of ID appear to be taking on the Goliath of the scientific
              establishment in an oblique manner which does not attack the central
              isssues. They seem unmindful, to me, that what they are disputing is not
              just a particular theory, but the whole worldview on which all western
              civilization and culture have been founded since Newton's day. ID theory is
              fundamentally incompatible with this worldview and in arguing with Darwinism
              (which is compatible with it), the ID-theorists are proposing implicitly
              that this long-established worldview be changed. But they have not made it
              clear yet as to why and how that worldview needs to be changed, nor what
              better worldview exists to replace it. A worldview is essentially a
              philosophical notion, not a scientific one, and by pitching their arguments
              mainly at scientists and by arguing mainly on the scientific level, the
              ID-proponents appear to be ignoring the core-issues that need to be
              addressed as a priority. Consequently, the ID movement in its present form
              seems self-doomed to ineffectuality and failure, to me.

              Bill: They are trying with books, conferences, university talks, etc, but
              the opposition is very resistant.
              There is an ID'r right here at UCLA - interesting, huh?Jefferey M.
              Schwartz

              Regan: Yes, but they are not hitting the opposition where it hurts, Bill.
              I think they need to make their philosophical premises clear, describe and
              explain their new worldview and show how it is a real improvement on the
              existing one. Only when they have done all these things with sufficient
              public clarity can they hope to overcome the staunch opposition of orthodox
              science. What they are trying to carry off is another Gallilean Revolution.
              That would entail overthrowing the established intellectual regime of the
              whole planet. Such a revolution needs to be well-planned and well prepared
              for before there can be any hope of its succeeding, I would expect.

              Regards,
              Regan
              _____



              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005





              Yahoo! Groups Links
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.