Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-02-2014 12:29 PM
144 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Wyrdly
Upcoming Birthdays: Aurelia
Post Volume:
Total: 736,951 Year: 22,792/28,606 Month: 93/1,786 Week: 282/384 Day: 35/58 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or Darwinean Evolution?
johndcal
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 7 (7852)
03-26-2002 1:15 AM


RECENT COMMENT (by advocate of Intelligent Design Theory): "Strict evolutionary theory explicitly denies any outside influence on the process--it is thoroughly self-contained, which, of course, runs entirely counter to the Christian conviction that a Creator was involved."

RESPONSE: Disagree. "Strict evolutionary theory" is simply (accredited) science. Evolution can (and does) proceed by the natural laws under which God created the universe: it is not necessary for Him to intervene (and play tinker toy). God is present and working in our lives and the universe, but not as Intelligent Design Theory envisions. Please see GOD, ORDER AND EVOLUTION at
http://www.faithreason.org/


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-26-2002 3:29 AM johndcal has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 9:32 AM johndcal has not yet responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (7856)
03-26-2002 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by johndcal
03-26-2002 1:15 AM


Lets take it one step further. Evolution is a scientific theory, operating under natural laws. It makes no reference, commentary, ect on religion, god , ect. One's belief in god or lack there of has nothing to do with the theory. ( Not arguing against you, just pointing out that TOE is a scientific theory, and has nothing to do with relegion, one way or another.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by johndcal, posted 03-26-2002 1:15 AM johndcal has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 7 (7862)
03-26-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by johndcal
03-26-2002 1:15 AM


Darwinian evolution and ID are NOT at odds.

Darwinian evolution starts AFTER the emergence of life.

ID is about how the first life came into being.

ID is a contrary view to abiogenesis NOT evolution.

Evolution is a contrary view to special creation of diverse life forms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by johndcal, posted 03-26-2002 1:15 AM johndcal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-29-2002 2:55 PM Peter has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-29-2002 4:55 PM Peter has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1477 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 7 (7996)
03-29-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
03-26-2002 9:32 AM


I think the whole thing can be resolved if Pasteur's grand aysmmetry was meet with Lavosier's balance sheet extended to multiple alleles but this was too phyical an idea for psychitirists and the physicist at CU who I heard dodge the whole thermo thing to a potential grad student by calling out of QM (sic!) the empricis this could be otherwise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 9:32 AM Peter has not yet responded

    
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 5 of 7 (8001)
03-29-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
03-26-2002 9:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Darwinian evolution and ID are NOT at odds.
Darwinian evolution starts AFTER the emergence of life.
ID is about how the first life came into being.
ID is a contrary view to abiogenesis NOT evolution.
Evolution is a contrary view to special creation of diverse life forms.

Not so. ID covers a range of views, but it most certainly is in att odds with evolution in many cases.
Behe's standard example of the bacterial flagellum could be about abiogenesis, but his other favourite example of the blood clotting mechanism certainly is not.
Whenr IDers to get round to discussing the designer they very rarely see the design process as a one-off incident, whereafter evolution takes over - rather, they see the designer as being continuously involved whenever new "designs" are needed.

Therein lies one potentially devastating falsification of Darwinian evolution: imagine a colony of bacteria in lab conditions in which all, simultaneously, in one generation acquired a new, irreducably complex, mutation. Behe would have a Nobel prize before Lamarck had stopped spinning in his grave.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 9:32 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 04-11-2002 7:49 AM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 7 (8438)
04-11-2002 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mister Pamboli
03-29-2002 4:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

Not so. ID covers a range of views, but it most certainly is in att odds with evolution in many cases.
Behe's standard example of the bacterial flagellum could be about abiogenesis, but his other favourite example of the blood clotting mechanism certainly is not.

Ah ... I was mainly thinking in terms of the potential for
design in DNA ... didn't fully appreciate that ID covers the
design of new critters and/or features along the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

Whenr IDers to get round to discussing the designer they very rarely see the design process as a one-off incident, whereafter evolution takes over - rather, they see the designer as being continuously involved whenever new "designs" are needed.

Therein lies one potentially devastating falsification of Darwinian evolution: imagine a colony of bacteria in lab conditions in which all, simultaneously, in one generation acquired a new, irreducably complex, mutation. Behe would have a Nobel prize before Lamarck had stopped spinning in his grave.


I've just changed my opinion in response to new information
(creationists take note )

ID and evolution are at odds after all.

Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of an originator of
life in the first place ... that I still say (even though
it's not my view that there IS an originator).

Also ... the above being the case ... how DOES ID differ from
creationism ???

[This message has been edited by Peter, 04-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-29-2002 4:55 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 04-11-2002 8:00 AM Peter has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 7 (8439)
04-11-2002 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peter
04-11-2002 7:49 AM


Peter:

You posted:

quote:
how DOES ID differ from creationism ???

Aye, there's the rub. There is literally and figuratively NO difference between ID and "special creation". The only functional difference is that most ID proponents seem to be almost all "old earthers". ID is simply special creation tarted up with scientific jargon and a nearly pathological avoidance of proclaiming "who" or "what" constitutes the Designer. Like so-called scientific creationism, it's merely the old tired wolf in shiny new clothes.

[edited for speeling]

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 04-11-2002 7:49 AM Peter has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014