Re: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:37:19 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Rita wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:12:47 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip long thread
>>
>>
>>>Rita, I've been reading this thread, and considered joining it, but
>>>decided not to. Now, I'll comment, because apparently you've reached
>>>the end of discussion with Mr. Smith.
>>>
>>>Suffice it to say, that Mr. Smith argues from a fallacious point of
>>>view. He infers, that because there is no negative evidentiary items
>>>disproving intelligent design, that it should be accepted as a valid
>>>theory. Perhaps, but that theory must be taken simply on faith that
>>>proof exists, or that the mechanism the theory proposes is valid in the
>>>absence of proof. The fallacy is that you can't prove a negative; only
>>>a positive. I doubt he realizes that.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, science doesn't base its theories on faith. It bases
>>>them on evidence. Evolution is a theory for a mechanism that produces
>>>change. There is ample evidence to support that mechanism( Natural
>>>Selection ). Intelligent Design is a crackpot idea for a mechanism that
>>>produces change. There is NO, repeat, NO evidence to even suggest that
>>>such an idea could be valid. Consequently, scientists accept the
>>>mechanism of Evolution and discard the crackpot idea of intelligent
>>>design, because the evidence indicates that it is true. Mr. Smith's
>>>comments about the 'tooth fairy' are appropriate, because they apply
>>>with equal force to his position. After all, why not postulate the
>>>tooth fairy as the 'intelligent designer?' And of course, if one
>>>accepts the concept of intelligent design, the whole idea falls apart
>>>because the question of who designed the designer can be asked, with
>>>obviously no answer, with the concomitant dilemma that the question
>>>raises. That, in and of itself, ought to be enough to convince the
>>>rational person that this view is sorely lacking, and hardly verifiable.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>
>>
>> You put it far better than I did, Alan. But I agree with your
>> argument. Evolution through natural selection is the mechanism
>> by which change in life occurs. Whether one wants to posit a
>> first cause that set the whole process in motion is really not
>> at issue, as far as I am concerned. If one chooses to believe that,
>> it doesn't negate the theory. As I understand what the ID people
>> hold, they believe that some supreme being chooses willfully to
>> intervene in the process here and there as it (for lack of a better
>> term) sees fit. And they pick specific cases where they believe
>> such intervention has occurred to prove their theory. But they
>> ignore that no one has ever said that all evoluationary processes
>> are today totally understood. Much has been learned and certainly
>> enough to affirm the theory, although it is open ended.
>>
>In truth, the mechanism for natural selection is understood. It is
>genetic mutation. Darwin didn't know this, but the random mutations
>which occur fit quite nicely into natural selection and indeed provide a
>mechanism for that. Taking the intelligent design faith based concept,
>there are far more questions raised by the evidence that the crackpot
>idea cannot explain. consequently, if a few out of thousands of
>examples appear to lend support for that fallacy, while the vast
>majority don't, reasonable and rational people discard the crackpot idea
>as likely not plausible as a consequence. The great equalizer, is
>evidence. That settles the argument. Evolution has volumes;
>creationism and intelligent design, have none.
>
>Js may try to convince himself that his beliefs are valid, however, he
>must continually ignore the lack of evidence that mitigates against
>that. Consequently, he must take his beliefs on the basis of faith,
>which is a totally religious and NOT scientific basis. He does not
>understand the subtle distinction. And for the record, there has been
>not one article published in a reputable peer review journal which
>supports either of these two crackpot ideas.


There's not merely lack of evidence, there's counter-evidence, as
has been noted, for example, about the structure of our knees which
are more appropriate for our quadrupedal ancestors than for bipeds,
the fact that we need bacteria to help us digest our food, the fact
that the transmitters for information from our eyes to our brains are
located in front of the retina, partly blocking the retina, rather
than in the back like squids whose eyes apparently evolved
separately, and so forth.

I have osteoarthritis in my knees, so I'm particularly resentful
about the knee structure.

The continued existence of our appendix, which is no benefit
to humans but which is a danger, is a conspicuous example of
nature building on the past. The leg-bones of whales are
absolutely useless, and are now even detached from the rest
of the skeleton. Whales were originally land animals Their
closest surviving relative is the hippopotamus, as chromosomal
analysis has recently revealed.. Natural selection hasn't yet
completely succeeded in getting rid of whales' legs, but she's
working on it.



>Intelligent Design postulates a mechanism for change which subtly
>implies an element of creation( which Evolution does not ), however,
>there is no mechanism, save conjecture and inference to validate that
>mechanism. Where, for example, is the evidence that there was any
>designer?
>
Alan
>
> Alan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... He infers, that because there is no negative evidentiary items disproving intelligent design, that it should be accepted as a valid theory. ... There is ample evidence to support that mechanism. ... Consequently, scientists accept the mechanism of Evolution and discard the crackpot idea of intelligent design, because the evidence indicates that it is true. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Kansas School Board
    ... > ostensibly in science class. ... >>> whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught ... We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster ...
    (rec.humor.jewish)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... >>>disproving intelligent design, that it should be accepted as a valid ... Evolution is a theory for a mechanism that produces ... There is ample evidence to support that mechanism(Natural ... the mechanism for natural selection is understood. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Britain: How did we get here?
    ... they believe in creationism and intelligent design. ... between scientific and "natural" evidence written in stone in the holy ... For me life is quite mysterious. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kansas School Board
    ... > will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. ... > alternative theory be taught in your schools, ... We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster ...
    (rec.humor.jewish)