Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Argument from Design: Design for who?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 39 (146020)
09-30-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:34 AM


ID according to ID man
In another thread, ID man asks:
quote:
How do we know that random mutations and NS were responsible? The reality is that we don't know we inherited the jaw bone from any reptiles.
MrHambre:
In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism?
Please provide the evidence that shows RM & NS were responsible for these structures. I will bet you that you cannot.
Can you even provide the evidence that the different sizes of the beaks of the finch are the result of random mutations?
So have you even read Behe? He has no trouble acknowledging common descent or that the Darwinian mechanism is responsible for certain evolutionary changes.
For the record, I have no doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanismnatural selection working on variationmight explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.5
So I'd say the High Priest of ID is most certainly saying that we can attribute finch beaks to RMNS.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-30-2004 11:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:26 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 20 of 39 (146064)
09-30-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:26 PM


An ID man wager
I'm starting to see a little of our old pal John Paul in ID man, since both of them are great at moving goalposts. Right now ID man is demanding evidence that random mutation and natural selection can even account for beak differences among various finch species. When he's provided with Pub Med articles on such research (or would Jonathan Weiner's Beak of the Finch suffice? Didn't think so), will he:
1) Dismiss the research as tainted by naturalistic assumptions,
2) Deny that such mutations are actually 'random' (the way he defines it), or
3) Assert that such minor evolutionary changes are irrelevant to the molecular basis of heredity and life itself and the physical laws of the universe?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:26 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:18 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 39 (146166)
09-30-2004 4:24 PM


ID man is John Paul
I had my suspicions before, but now I know. I'm probably not the only one who noticed the similarities in the style of debate: the bad logic, the denials that nature alone can accomplish anything, the scorn heaped on naturalistic science, the insistence that we back up any claim while he offers only quotes from Discovery Institute fellows, etc, etc. I've wasted too much time on this bullshit artist.
In this post note how ID man quotes PaulK with a little tag so we know who's speaking.
quote:
PaulK:
Therefore we have now established that your claim of "double standards" was indeed a lie.
Your refusal to look at the work I cited is typical of willful ignorance.
Compare John Paul quoting himself (again we're given a helpful tag) and making the delicate suggestion that his opponent may benefit from further research into the admittedly extensive ID literature...
John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.
Here ID man quotes Behe:
Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike Behe
Lo and behold, in this post we get virtually the same quote from John Paul:
As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
And here's ID man getting all colloquial:
Ya see this is all part of the double-standards I am talking about.
That's so reminiscent of this gem from John Paul, wherein he gives us a Stonehenge presentation no less ridiculous than Spinal Tap's:
Ya see holmes, I have never seen anyone build or design Stonehenge yet I can say with conviction that it is the product of design.
Coincidence? Go figure.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024