Re: Letter to the Editor: Proponents of creationism don't have a hidden agenda


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1194399578.881482.213300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 6, 4:55 pm, "Alpha Male" <BOPE.Elite.Sq...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:50 -0200, Jason Spaceman





<notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Editor,

Regarding the debate about intelligent design, and specifically Mark
Erasmus' letter printed in the Daily Lobo on Friday, the question is
not
whether intelligent design is real science. The question is what do we
do
with the intelligent design we observe in nature?

Michael Behe and William Dembski are not necessarily interjecting
religion
into the debate, but they are addressing the elephant that is sitting
in
the middle of the room. Erasmus did not deny the existence of design
in
nature, because intellectually, he cannot. It is there. And for
evolutionists, it is a problem.

How can something that is so intricate and complex in its natural
state -
the human genome, for example - have come about by random processes?
There
have been proposed solutions such as punctuated equilibrium posited by
Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. One other possible solution is
intelligent design as posited by Behe, Dembski and others. Both have
their
strengths and weaknesses, but to dismiss these latter gentlemen as
people
with a hidden agenda is rather foolish, as most of them are scientists
and
researchers highly respected in their fields.

It would be just as foolish to dismiss Gould because he is an atheist.
As to
Erasmus' argument that intelligent design is by nature seeking the
supernatural, I would argue that evolutionists are continually
avoiding
it
and perhaps wishing the argument would go away. Many evolutionists,
such
as
Gould, are atheists, and they approach and apply their theories from
this
bias. But if to acknowledge the existence of God is to enter the realm
of
religion, then to deny the existence of God is doing the same. If
science
is truly objective, then it should look at all the facts coldly and
consider all possible solutions. It is my argument that there is
evidence
of a creator all around us. And I have it on good authority that he
isn't
going anywhere.

Shay Talley

Daily Lobo reader
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at

http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2007/11/05...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/2guoa7

J. Spaceman

Evolution is NOT a random process!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then why is the word 'random' used to describe mutation events and the
evolutionary process?

You guys want it both ways: you want the word 'random' without its
understood meaning because you realize that it makes evolution look
foolish, while needing to retain said word because it implies that God
does not exist or is not involved in the evolutionary process. You
give random a stipulated meaning while never telling the audience
until someone points out how impossible random is to have had any role
in the nature we see, then in this context you cough up that
stipulated meaning.

Pure dishonesty and equivocation. = the Darwinian way.


Pure idiocy from Ray again. It must have been spelled otu a million times,
and he still doesn't, or doesn't want to know or understand that Natural
Selection is not a random process. Darwin did not write about randomness,
he had no idea about the source of (genetic) variation. But he correctly
identified the operative agent of evolution, selection for fitness.

If a meteorite hit you and knocked you dead, dear Ray, would not that random
event guarantee that you'd never have any (more) children? Why would that
random event not have any influence on the evolutionary future of your
particular branch of humanity?

Please reply, I believe you are dead wrong and ought to know better. And you
think you can refute the ToE? You need not publish your paper before you
have understood what mutations are, and what natural selection is. How can
you refute something you are completely ignorant about?

Ray






.

Relevant Pages