I missed the part where I said something incorrect.
Why do you continue to dig the hole deeper? Is this just a stream of consciousness on your part or do you have an argument?
I honestly am not trying to be smart-alecky or mean-spirited—but really, come on. You’ve never encountered evidence for transitional forms?
No, we already covered this. How many children do I have? And how did you come to know this about me? Scientifically, or by faith?
You’re a lawyer, yet you cannot see both sides of an argument?!
Scottm, important for Christians to remember that science has nothing to do with God. Alec has already mentioned, “Philosphy of science is a discipline which investigates the methods, structures, limitations, assumptions and reliability of science. It touches on how science works and what we can reliably know by using the scientific method.”
Pontifical Academy of Sciences Academician Peter H. Raven, Professor of Biology, and a chairman of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) said, “The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can’t explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent. This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it’s being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence.”
There are three different definitions of Irreducible Complexity proposed by ID, see here. The first of these exists, and is present in cells. You are incorrect to say that this form of IC is denied. The problem for ID is that this form of IC (Knockout IC) can evolve. For example here is a mutation by mutation example of the evolution of such an IC system: Line of Descent. This is taken from Lenski’s paper. As a second example there is the Behe and Snoke paper, yes that is the same Professor Behe.
Car parts do not reproduce other car parts, with variations. Your analogy is not a good one.
It is, but it does not disprove evolution.
Important for Christians to remember is why science has nothing to do with God.
of course he has. I’ve seen the evidence presented on transitional forms here at least 4 times now with plenty of citations. They just rehash the same old arguments but its them who are against the Church on this one…NO argument…
Is there a point in here somewhere?You’re a lawyer, yet you cannot see both sides of an argument?!
A lawyer is supposed to state the point that she disagrees with and then state the evidence for her position. You are not doing this.
Philosophy is logic and reasoning. If you took a logic course in college I bet it had a “philosophy” prefix or ID number. Science is the use of logic and reasoning to organize data from experience of phenomena. Imagine the reasoning a scientist would use without scientific data (as for questions where scientific data wasn’t possible). That would be “philosophy.”
To put it another way, the scientific discipline is the philosophical discipline applied to phenomena, which makes science the philosophy of nature in the same way that biology is the science of living things, and chemistry is the science of matter. This is why science is a branch of philosophy in the same way that physics, biology, and chemistry are branches of science.
Historically all branches of science were explicitly categorized as a branch of philosophy. Modernly we categorize them separately from philosophy and treat philosophy itself as a “humanity,” but our choice of terminology cannot erase the connection.
Science only deals with repeatable observable phenomena, which by definition means that it only deals with the “natural.” Consequently, science will tell us only what is natural. Philosophy is larger. Philosophy tells us whether or not natural is all that there is. Science, because of it’s built-in limitation, cannot tell us whether the supernatural exists. This leads to an important point: The existence of the supernatural is not a conclusion of science but rather a presuposition drawn from philosophy a step before you get to science. This is why an atheist can look at natural data and say, “See – God is not real,” while a theist looks at the same natural data and say, “This doesn’t say ‘no God’ on it.”
When you see a house you don’t even see the foundation, but it’s there and it’s what the rest relies upon. Take away the foundation and the rest comes tumbling down. Some Christians have known this for a very long time.
So when will you be retracting this stratement Ed? You’ve posted on the other thread about genesis and evolution that you will rely on Pope Benedict on this …so since you have by now read “In the beginning…” you realize you are speaking against doctrine now? correct? we are waiting.