One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

I’m a Hylemorphic Dualist, I’ve wrote and presented papers on the subject. Within the Metaphysical assumptions of the Thomistic framework Intelligent Design doesn’t work as it is incoherent. Instead of assuming my position why didn’t you ask instead? In the way you are using concepts and terminology you are assuming substance dualism, as does Intelligent Design in taking the modern metaphysics. The classical Teleological Argument with its Aristotelian Metaphysics is incompatible with Intelligent Design, as they work off two entirely different framework.

Maybe you should spend some time with an Introduction to Philosophy, and read my posts much closer since you have demonstrated you are attacking me on nothing but a strawman.

Tip: There is a reason Philosophers like Kurr, Feser, Kenny, Leftow, Smith & McGrath have not supported Intelligent Design though they are Thomistic Philosophers: Thomists don’t believe the ID crowd have got it right, they are committed to a fallacious and flawed argument.

If you have “wrote” papers then perhaps you can explain why “the” arguments, specifically “the” arguments proposed by Meyer are incoherent under Thomistic metaphysics. Claiming THAT they are and claiming THAT a number of Thomist philosophers say they are is just as much avoiding stepping up to the plate as claiming THAT a bunch of scientists claim the arguments are “unscientific” and THEREFORE they ought to be dismissed.

I don’t see a great deal of substantive reasoning on your part and the fact that you don’t actually provide arguments to the contrary makes me wonder whether you, like the other two posters, do have anything important to add. It also makes me wonder if you are not in cahoots with them, since the methods you use to construct arguments matches consistently their method. I’m just taking a stab in the dark here, but you could be their philosophical “mentor” and guide.

I’ve read the posts that you ”have wrote” [sic] and used lenses of increasing power to “read closer” and still cannot locate anything that can remotely be taken even to masquerade as an argument. Perhaps you can simplify and set it down in a clear logical form - for those of us who struggle with philosophy - addressing how Meyer or IDers generally have an incoherent case. Of course, I suggest that you would have to know what his/their case actually IS before it can be determined a priori, on philosophical grounds, that it is incoherent, but I leave it to you to dispense with that minor detail and provide the counter argument anyway.

My not having taken Philosophy 101 should not be a barrier to stop YOU from giving a cogent argument for YOUR claim that ID is incoherent.

TIP: Providing a factoid that Thomist philosophers do not accept ID is not the same as providing the argument for WHY they do. I suspect a genuine philosopher would recognize the difference and not give inane tips, but, hey, that’s just me.

I am looking forward to being embarrassed by your irrefutable destruction of ID arguments so we can move forward to a more productive and important philosophical discussion on the price of putty in China.

Please AVOID taking the following detours around the challenge, by saying or writing any of the following, or any essentially similar statement.

1. I already gave the arguments in multiple posts, go back and find them yourself!
2. The arguments have been given by Thomists elsewhere, I am not going to repeat them. Go find them yourself!
3. Here are the links to some web sites that make the same claim as I do. Go read them!
4. Everything you and IDers claim commit you all to Cartesian dualism and therefore fails.
5. By claiming I can’t make an argument against ID you are guilty of an ad hominem, therefore, I need not stoop to providing an argument. Mere accusatory gestures are sufficient to defray my burden for doing so.

Except for 4) all the others have been used ineffectively by the posters you defend. Your use, in whole or in part, of any of them constitutes further evidence of your possible collusion with those posters.

 

[buffalo]

Ah, okay, let me reinsert then…
First on Natural Selection, what do you mean exactly by “conservative process not a creative one”?

Now Random Mutation, you believe DNA is infallible or perfect?

NS sustains what is there. It does not have power to create more. Interview WIth Lynn Margulis - natural selection

RM - no DNA is not perfect. But it is a super efficient copier.
Discovering the secrets of DNA repair

Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism -

“One method to repair such damage that all organisms have evolved is called base excision repair. In BER, special enzymes known as DNA glycosylases travel down the DNA molecule scanning for these lesions. When they encounter one, they break the base pair bond and flip the deformed base out of the DNA double helix. The enzyme contains a specially shaped pocket that holds the deformed base in place while detaching it without damaging the backbone. This leaves a gap (called an “abasic site”) in the DNA that is repaired by another set of enzymes.”

DNA and the ‘magic rings’ trick

DNA suffers damage all the time both from outside influences, such as radiation or chemicals, and also from normal cellular processes. Unrepaired, DNA damage can lead to cancer or birth defects. Several genes linked to a high risk of cancer, such as the “breast cancer gene” BRCA2, have turned out to be involved in DNA repair.
When damage crosses both strands of the DNA double helix, a sophisticated repair process is activated that uses the same DNA sequence on the matching chromosome. One of the strands is stripped back, leaving an exposed single strand. The matching chromosome is brought alongside and partly unwound, and acts as a template to repair the broken piece.
At this point, the two chromosomes are intact but attached at two points through structures called “Holliday junctions,” where DNA strands from the two chromosomes cross each other. To finish the process, the chromosomes have to separate – like the magician’s interlocking rings, one has to pass through the other.

Read more at: phys.org/news/2010-10-dna-magic.html#jCp

 

[buffalo]

It is now time to consider this: Does anyone here doubt this axis of information?

The third axis: Information - the “breath” of God, Creative Reason.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7313

 

[buffalo]

If you have “wrote” papers then perhaps you can explain why “the” arguments, specifically “the” arguments proposed by Meyer are incoherent under Thomistic metaphysics. Claiming THAT they are and claiming THAT a number of Thomist philosophers say they are is just as much avoiding stepping up to the plate as claiming THAT a bunch of scientists claim the arguments are “unscientific” and THEREFORE they ought to be dismissed.

I don’t see a great deal of substantive reasoning on your part and the fact that you don’t actually provide arguments to the contrary makes me wonder whether you, like the other two posters, do have anything important to add. It also makes me wonder if you are not in cahoots with them, since the methods you use to construct arguments matches consistently their method. I’m just taking a stab in the dark here, but you could be their philosophical “mentor” and guide.

I’ve read the posts that you ”have wrote” [sic] and used lenses of increasing power to “read closer” and still cannot locate anything that can remotely be taken even to masquerade as an argument. Perhaps you can simplify and set it down in a clear logical form - for those of us who struggle with philosophy - addressing how Meyer or IDers generally have an incoherent case. Of course, I suggest that you would have to know what his/their case actually IS before it can be determined a priori, on philosophical grounds, that it is incoherent, but I leave it to you to dispense with that minor detail and provide the counter argument anyway.

My not having taken Philosophy 101 should not be a barrier to stop YOU from giving a cogent argument for YOUR claim that ID is incoherent.

TIP: Providing a factoid that Thomist philosophers do not accept ID is not the same as providing the argument for WHY they do. I suspect a genuine philosopher would recognize the difference and not give inane tips, but, hey, that’s just me.

I am looking forward to being embarrassed by your irrefutable destruction of ID arguments so we can move forward to a more productive and important philosophical discussion on the price of putty in China.

Please AVOID taking the following detours around the challenge, by saying or writing any of the following, or any essentially similar statement.

1. I already gave the arguments in multiple posts, go back and find them yourself!
2. The arguments have been given by Thomists elsewhere, I am not going to repeat them. Go find them yourself!
3. Here are the links to some web sites that make the same claim as I do. Go read them!
4. Everything you and IDers claim commit you all to Cartesian dualism and therefore fails.
5. By claiming I can’t make an argument against ID you are guilty of an ad hominem, therefore, I need not stoop to providing an argument. Mere accusatory gestures are sufficient to defray my burden for doing so.

Except for 4) all the others have been used ineffectively by the posters you defend. Your use, in whole or in part, of any of them constitutes further evidence of your possible collusion with those posters.

I consider myself a Thomist and would have a problem with some interpretations of ID, that God is a tinkerer. IDvolution solves that in positing that God is like an artist who paints on a canvas except all at once. What He thinks is painted on the canvas. Then the painting able to journey forward with a full expression of the thought. But, it is all there at the get go.

 

[vz71]

Apologies if I repeat a point. I left for a couple of days and find someone doubled the size of this thread in my absence.

I’m stumped as to how blind, unguided chance - undirected and mindless - just stumbled onto a useful direction.

Blind, unguided chance cannot.

Science will have to come up with a better explanation.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

NS sustains what is there. It does not have power to create more. Interview WIth Lynn Margulis - natural selection

According to Creationists. Notice that you source is ID, not Science.
This is a classic case of quote mining. Natural Selection, BY ITSELF,
does not create, you’re right, but it isn’t by itself evolution claims, isn’t
that right?

RM - no DNA is not perfect. But it is a super efficient copier.
Discovering the secrets of DNA repair

Newly Discovered DNA Repair Mechanism -

So it’s perfect you’re saying? Yes DNA has plenty of mechanisms to repair
itself, but I don’t believe that it is perfect like God is perfect. Can’t see why
you claim otherwise. If DNA is so perfect, how do you account for deforma-
tions in radical cases? What of micro-evolution?

Do you think that you are SO clever and insightful that you can jump to these conclusions
and prove evolution didn’t happen, while the majority of the scientific community somehow
missed these little things?

Now if you say that “no DNA is not perfect,” then isn’t it possible that small mistakes
over a long period of time in the gene pool can produce great changes (AGAIN: over a
LONG period of time)?

 

[vz71]

The Scientific Community is well aware that from the very beginning, Intelligent Design has been
about religion. Need Proof? NEED PROOF? Just look on this thread. The very subject of of God
is unavoidable whenever it is discussed on a thread. AT LEAST ONCE is enough to disqualify it
as a science.

I fail to understand why implication of God disqualifies something as a science.

As our knowledge of creation increases, it is unavoidable that we will begin to see the hand of God. It is his creation, further and further study and understanding of it will imply God.

The Big Bang implies God. It proposes that everything exploded forth from a single point. This begs the question of where the energy for this came from, which of course will lead to God. Of course, physicists are working very hard to explain what happened before, but thus far have not come up with much. Zero does not propagate anything but zero.
But no one claims the Big Bang to be anything but science.

But when someone says “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”, they suddenly are outside of science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I consider myself a Thomist and would have a problem with some interpretations of ID, that God is a tinkerer. IDvolution solves that in positing that God is like an artist who paints on a canvas except all at once. What He thinks is painted on the canvas. Then the painting able to journey forward with a full expression of the thought. But, it is all there at the get go.

It appears that Thomists must grapple with revealed events such as the Exodus, the burning bush, parting the Red Sea, providing manna and quails in the desert, speaking through the Prophets, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, among the many ways in which “tinkering” (aka special intervention,) has been a means by which God has worked in creation, since all of these would need to be explained under Thomism. Thomism does not, at least to my reading, stipulate what God can or cannot do, it just seeks to avoid categorizing him as a deity of superhuman proportions, a projection of human qualities into the ethereal realms.

I would agree that any claims about God would be susceptible to an assessment of their implications according to Thomistic metaphysics, but a claim that God couldn’t undertake a specific action in nature is beyond any implications of Thomism. I am not clear how implanting divine nature into a human womb is categorically different from implanting the potential for rational creatures into primordial chemistry. Defense of the first seems to allow for the second for many of the same reasons.

 

[Peter_Plato]

According to Creationists. Notice that you source is ID, not Science.
This is a classic case of quote mining. Natural Selection, BY ITSELF,
does not create, you’re right, but it isn’t by itself evolution claims, isn’t
that right?

So it’s perfect you’re saying? Yes DNA has plenty of mechanisms to repair
itself, but I don’t believe that it is perfect like God is perfect. Can’t see why
you claim otherwise. If DNA is so perfect, how do you account for deforma-
tions in radical cases? What of micro-evolution?

Do you think that you are SO clever and insightful that you can jump to these conclusions
and prove evolution didn’t happen, while the majority of the scientific community somehow
missed these little things?

Now if you say that “no DNA is not perfect,” then isn’t it possible that small mistakes
over a long period of time in the gene pool can produce great changes (AGAIN: over a
LONG period of time)?

Which begs the question entirely of why a perfect God would allow those “small mistakes” in the gene pool or even choose such a fault-prone mechanism for bringing about human life. This position of yours appears to function better as an apology for evil and sin since these faulty, imperfect genes would reasonably excuse human responsibility and implicate God entirely as the cause of our ills BECAUSE of the ill-conceived means that HE is entirely responsible for choosing to form human beings in such a hit and miss fashion.

Your entire defense seems to be more a cobbled together apologetic than a consistently well-thought out and defensible position.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I consider myself a Thomist and would have a problem with some interpretations of ID, that God is a tinkerer. IDvolution solves that in positing that God is like an artist who paints on a canvas except all at once. What He thinks is painted on the canvas. Then the painting able to journey forward with a full expression of the thought. But, it is all there at the get go.

The two models (IDvolution and evolution) being proposed seem to both allow for evolution of a certain kind to occur, which is the reason I dismiss Judas T’s contentions as missing the point entirely.

1. IDvolution proposes that much like the development of an individual living plant or animal from a zygote form which contains within it all the information necessary to evolve a fully functioning adult of that species, the genetic code (aka information) was infused (breathed) into the physical order by God. Following that, the genetic potential unravelled itself into all the life forms predetermined by the “stuff” already contained in the originating DNA. Barring mutations - which are generally destructive rather than constructive - life would evolve unlocked by natural triggers in the environment that would open up the various potential forms written into the DNA.

This view positively endorses evolution by a kind of natural selection process, much as the proper environment is necessary to allow individual life forms to fully develop from a zygote.

IDvolution occurs, on the macro level, much as the development of an individual living creature does on the micro level.

1. Darwinian evolution views the process as essentially a process of blind construction where pieces are built onto existing pieces by random assembly and only then subject to a process of “selection” to determine whether the succeeding form can possibly survive. The problem here is that there is no reason to think the blind process is capable of constructing any form that could possibly succeed without some predetermined potential for it to do so. To claim it was successful because there currently exist successful forms is begging the question of whether that process alone would have the creative power necessary to continually contrive new and successful forms. How do we know that without assuming retrospectively that it did?

Essentially, both views endorse evolution of a kind so to arbitrarily claim that IDvolution does not is not an argument but, rather, a red herring. And even if, prior to Dover, all IDers held a belief that design was not evolutionary in character does not support the claim that better informed versions of IDvolution are subject to the same counter arguments as “creationist” views on the matter.

The above model of IDvolution does not require a literal interpretation of Genesis. To merely state that IDvolution “came from” creationist dogma does not defeat the newer version of the theory. That kind of argument is clearly an example of the genetic fallacy.

 

[buffalo]

According to Creationists. Notice that you source is ID, not Science.
This is a classic case of quote mining. Natural Selection, BY ITSELF,
does not create, you’re right, but it isn’t by itself evolution claims, isn’t
that right?

So it’s perfect you’re saying? Yes DNA has plenty of mechanisms to repair
itself, but I don’t believe that it is perfect like God is perfect. Can’t see why
you claim otherwise. If DNA is so perfect, how do you account for deforma-
tions in radical cases? What of micro-evolution?

Do you think that you are SO clever and insightful that you can jump to these conclusions
and prove evolution didn’t happen, while the majority of the scientific community somehow
missed these little things?

Now if you say that “no DNA is not perfect,” then isn’t it possible that small mistakes
over a long period of time in the gene pool can produce great changes (AGAIN: over a
LONG period of time)?

Follow the source links. This interview came from Discover Magazine hardly an ID magazine. :banghead:

I did not say it was perfect. But, it is pretty close. And why wouldn’t it be that good if it is from God? The repair process is part of a feedback loop, a hallmark of design.

Since Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts perhaps DNA was better then than even now. If so, that would account for the long lives. God withdrew something they had when they sinned.

Micro-evo aka adaptation is built in right at the beginning, the ability to adapt to changing environment. Adaptation would be pretty essential for life to deal with changing conditions.

J Harlen Bretz had the same problem until the rest of geologists caught up with him. Many scientific breakthroughs are done by one person against prevailing “wisdom”.

50 years ago that seemed plausible. Evolution needs long time. It was though NS and RM could do it within the time ascribed to the age of the earth. Today, 2014, with new data there isn’t enough time. Even the smallest changes will take trillions of trillions of years. The modern synthesis test fails the UPB ( and some argued it doesn’t) but it certainly is failing the plausibility test.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

The status of the central propositions of Darwinism-Modern Synthesis in the light of evolutionary genomics

Proposition

Fixation of (rare) beneficial changes by natural selection is the main driving force of evolution that, generally, produces increasingly complex adaptive features of organisms; hence progress as a general trend in evolution

Current Status

False. Natural (positive) selection is an important factor of evolution but is only one of several fundamental forces and is not quantitatively dominant; neutral processes combined with purifying selection dominate evolution. Genomic complexity, probably evolved as a ‘genomic syndrome’ cause by weak purifying selection in small population and not as an adaptation. **There is no consistent trend towards increasing complexity in evolution, and the notion of evolutionary progress is unwarranted
**

Proposition
The variations fixed by natural selection are ‘infinitesimally small’. Evolution adheres to gradualism

Current Status
False. Even single gene duplications and HGT of single genes are by no means ‘infinitesimally small’ let alone deletion or acquisition of larger regions, genome rearrangements, whole-genome duplication, and most dramatically, endosymbiosis. **Gradualism is not the principal regime of evolution **

Proposition
The entire evolution of life can be depicted as a single ‘big tree’

Current Status
False. The discovery of the fundamental contributions of HGT and mobile genetic elements to genome evolution invalidate the TOL concept in its original sense. However, trees remain essential templates to represent evolution of individual genes and many phases of evolution in groups of relatively close organisms. The possibility of salvaging the TOL as a central trend of evolution remains

 

[buffalo]

It appears that Thomists must grapple with revealed events such as the Exodus, the burning bush, parting the Red Sea, providing manna and quails in the desert, speaking through the Prophets, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, among the many ways in which “tinkering” (aka special intervention,) has been a means by which God has worked in creation, since all of these would need to be explained under Thomism. Thomism does not, at least to my reading, stipulate what God can or cannot do, it just seeks to avoid categorizing him as a deity of superhuman proportions, a projection of human qualities into the ethereal realms.

I would agree that any claims about God would be susceptible to an assessment of their implications according to Thomistic metaphysics, but a claim that God couldn’t undertake a specific action in nature is beyond any implications of Thomism. I am not clear how implanting divine nature into a human womb is categorically different from implanting the potential for rational creatures into primordial chemistry. Defense of the first seems to allow for the second for many of the same reasons.

By tinkering I mean correcting His mistakes.

I might take this time to introduce the quantum effects of prayer into this. Suppose human free will (the conscious observer) effects the events in the universe. Suppose our cumulative bad behavior effects the outcome negatively. God intervenes. I think Thomists would not have an issue with ID in this case. What are your thoughts?

 

[buffalo]

1. IDvolution proposes that much like the development of an individual living plant or animal from a zygote form which contains within it all the information necessary to evolve a fully functioning adult of that species, the genetic code (aka information) was infused (breathed) into the physical order by God. Following that, the genetic potential unravelled itself into all the life forms predetermined by the “stuff” already contained in the originating DNA. Barring mutations - which are generally destructive rather than constructive - life would evolve unlocked by natural triggers in the environment that would open up the various potential forms written into the DNA.

This view positively endorses evolution by a kind of natural selection process, much as the proper environment is necessary to allow individual life forms to fully develop from a zygote.

IDvolution occurs, on the macro level, much as the development of an individual living creature does on the micro level.

Exactly. Man, I could have said this better myself. :clapping:

Why can’t others see this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

By tinkering I mean correcting His mistakes.

I might take this time to introduce the quantum effects of prayer into this. Suppose human free will (the conscious observer) effects the events in the universe. Suppose our cumulative bad behavior effects the outcome negatively. God intervenes. I think Thomists would not have an issue with ID in this case. What are your thoughts?

Dilatory or negative effects of free will, I think would precisely be the prompts under which God would interfere.

The “missing link” though is why God would intervene in the physics and chemistry of the cosmos in order to bring about life? I would suggest that the rational nature of human beings precludes human beings from developing solely as a result of biochemistry, but also that the physical aspect of human nature that interfaces with reasoning potential would also not ever be arrived at by strictly physical or chemical processes since the form or information accessed by reason is not, strictly speaking, an inherent or essential form that matter would merely “tend” towards.

 

[buffalo]

Dilatory or negative effects of free will, I think would precisely be the prompts under which God would interfere.

The “missing link” though is why God would intervene in the physics and chemistry of the cosmos in order to bring about life? I would suggest that the rational nature of human beings precludes human beings from developing solely as a result of biochemistry, but also that the physical aspect of human nature that interfaces with reasoning potential would also not ever be arrived at by strictly physical or chemical processes since the form or information accessed by reason is not, strictly speaking, an inherent or essential form that matter would merely “tend” towards.

1. Agreed
2. Agreed

I think the anti ID Thomists are missing this. I think they would like IDvolution though.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I fail to understand why implication of God disqualifies something as a science.

As our knowledge of creation increases, it is unavoidable that we will begin to see the hand of God. It is his creation, further and further study and understanding of it will imply God.

The Big Bang implies God. It proposes that everything exploded forth from a single point. This begs the question of where the energy for this came from, which of course will lead to God. Of course, physicists are working very hard to explain what happened before, but thus far have not come up with much. Zero does not propagate anything but zero.
But no one claims the Big Bang to be anything but science.

But when someone says “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”, they suddenly are outside of science.

God is not part of science, ergo any branch of study claiming to be involved with subjects
on the Divine cannot be a science. What makes Intelligent Design so special, however, is
that Metaphysics doesn’t hold itself on par with biology, nor does Theistic Evolution go so
far as to say that it is science like chemistry and neurology, but Intelligent Design active–
ly portrays itself to the world as a science, despite what the scientific community claims.

Intelligent Design is more reasonable in Mormon Doctrine, where their god is an exalted,
but finite, man who did not create anything but simply “designed” everything from preex-
isting disorganized matter. MY God is infinite, invisible, eternally higher than his physic-
al creation, and it cannot go anywhere before the Big Bang and see a little particle then
say, “IT’S GOD!” If the very point of Intelligent Design is to prove the existence of a God,
which it is, then it is not science, because science does not deal with God.

And,

But when someone says “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”, they suddenly are outside of science.

You darn right “outside of science,” because once you try to go beyond
Creation and find the Creator, you’re no longer in the realm of the study
of the Creation, called “Science,” but have now entered into a pseudo-
-scientific study based on one’s personal belief.

Seriously, it isn’t enough for some people to accept Paul’s words that Nature
testifies of God, you have to take it apart and examine it to scientifically verif-
y the spiritual truthfulness of Paul’s words.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Which begs the question entirely of why a perfect God would allow those “small mistakes” in the gene pool or even choose such a fault-prone mechanism for bringing about human life. This position of yours appears to function better as an apology for evil and sin since these faulty, imperfect genes would reasonably excuse human responsibility and implicate God entirely as the cause of our ills BECAUSE of the ill-conceived means that HE is entirely responsible for choosing to form human beings in such a hit and miss fashion.

Your entire defense seems to be more a cobbled together apologetic than a consistently well-thought out and defensible position.

We perceive them as “mistakes”, but only because we are creatures that cannot, not claim
to, know the will of God. God guided, or established natural laws, whatever happened, it hap-
pened, meeting up with God’s plan. We see it as fault-prone, but do we understand the Mind
of God? I don’t, you shouldn’t claim to either.

Now I am not attributing all of our woes to God in this way, for at some point, humanity was
PERFECT! However long that lasted, at some point, that ended. From then on, we became
Nature’s uh . . . “female dog,” subject to all the pains having lost that state of grace, so we
suffer.

What your position appears to be is that evolution as defined by science can-
not be true because it doesn’t meet up with the Bible, and you know what we
call that? RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Follow the source links. This interview came from Discover Magazine hardly an ID magazine. :banghead:

Talking about that one with Lynn Margulis, right? You’re link was to an idvolution
blogspot, not Discover magazine, but something FROM Discover magazine, ON
an ID site. In college, when assigned an essay with Citation Page, teachers will
sometimes, if not always, ask us not to go to Wikipedia. Why? It is often an un-
reliable source. And again, I pointed out the possibility of Quote Mining, in which
the quotes are not necessarily untrue, but may be robbed of their meaning. Also,
this is one scientist among many, she is a minority, and for a special reason.

I did not say it was perfect.

Perfect Enough To Not Go Wrong…

But, it is pretty close.

Error being Impossible…

And why wouldn’t it be that good if it is from God?

Did I say it was bad?

The repair process is part of a feedback loop, a hallmark of design.

Which is as error free as God, right?

Since Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts perhaps DNA was better then than even now. If so, that would account for the long lives. God withdrew something they had when they sinned.

PERHAPS, as the BIBLE says, which is religion, not science, Genesis has been
proven to be not 100% literal, some IDists are like “okay, fine, not 100%”, but will
randomly select what they want to be literal. Oy.

Micro-evo aka adaptation is built in right at the beginning, the ability to adapt to changing environment. Adaptation would be pretty essential for life to deal with changing conditions.

Yes, adaptation would be pretty essential for life to deal
with changing conditions, best by changing, which is ev-
olution, which so I fail to see your point.

J Harlen Bretz had the same problem until the rest of geologists caught up with him.

Geologists, not Biologists.

Many scientific breakthroughs are done by one person against prevailing “wisdom”.

So the understanding here is that the majority is pro-evolution
and anti-ID, therefore Intelligent Design is science. BRILLIANT!

MAY LOOK AT THE REST LATER.

 

[buffalo]

God is not part of science, ergo any branch of study claiming to be involved with subjects
on the Divine cannot be a science. What makes Intelligent Design so special, however, is
that Metaphysics doesn’t hold itself on par with biology, nor does Theistic Evolution go so
far as to say that it is science like chemistry and neurology, but Intelligent Design active–
ly portrays itself to the world as a science, despite what the scientific community claims.

Intelligent Design is more reasonable in Mormon Doctrine, where their god is an exalted,
but finite, man who did not create anything but simply “designed” everything from preex-
isting disorganized matter. MY God is infinite, invisible, eternally higher than his physic-
al creation, and it cannot go anywhere before the Big Bang and see a little particle then
say, “IT’S GOD!” If the very point of Intelligent Design is to prove the existence of a God,
which it is, then it is not science, because science does not deal with God.

And,

You darn right “outside of science,” because once you try to go beyond
Creation and find the Creator, you’re no longer in the realm of the study
of the Creation, called “Science,” but have now entered into a pseudo-
-scientific study based on one’s personal belief.

Seriously, it isn’t enough for some people to accept Paul’s words that Nature
testifies of God, you have to take it apart and examine it to scientifically verif-
y the spiritual truthfulness of Paul’s words.

God created everything including science. The study of God is science by definition. Modern science ala naturalism has excluded Him, (by design by the way). It was not always that way. In effect, science has painted itself into a corner and their are many in that same corner with it. Nowhere to go.

 

[buffalo]

Talking about that one with Lynn Margulis, right? You’re link was to an idvolution
blogspot, not Discover magazine, but something FROM Discover magazine, ON
an ID site. In college, when assigned an essay with Citation Page, teachers will
sometimes, if not always, ask us not to go to Wikipedia. Why? It is often an un-
reliable source. And again, I pointed out the possibility of Quote Mining, in which
the quotes are not necessarily untrue, but may be robbed of their meaning. Also,
this is one scientist among many, she is a minority, and for a special reason.

Perfect Enough To Not Go Wrong…

Error being Impossible…

Did I say it was bad?

Which is as error free as God, right?

PERHAPS, as the BIBLE says, which is religion, not science, Genesis has been
proven to be not 100% literal, some IDists are like “okay, fine, not 100%”, but will
randomly select what they want to be literal. Oy.

Yes, adaptation would be pretty essential for life to deal
with changing conditions, best by changing, which is ev-
olution, which so I fail to see your point.

Geologists, not Biologists.

So the understanding here is that the majority is pro-evolution
and anti-ID, therefore Intelligent Design is science. BRILLIANT!

MAY LOOK AT THE REST LATER.

So what? The interview is linked so you can go to the original source. What don’t you get about this? It is wrong because it is not popular? If it is popular it is correct? That is just plain absurd. For the sake of argument, let us assume NS is as claimed, it still has to act on less opportunities for RM as I have shown. Still needs more magnitudes time.

Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms

http://www.mutationworks.com/rdmc/index.cfm

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness

Jim Cantelon sits down with Dr. John Sanford
Author of: – “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”
Ph.D. in plant breeding and plant genetics