Statesboro, GA, USA
I didn't say that nothing in the literature supports Darwin's mechanism for biological change. I said that nothing in the literature supports Darwin's assertion that the mechanism is responsible for all bio-diversity we see. I'd be happy to discuss / consider any data you might directly quote,, attempting to put it in your own words and commentary, rather than links only.
[quote]Me: Would you concede my point if the court had ruled differently? ...
Turtle: No. I cannot concede to "ifs" and "maybes" when the facts are staring me in the face.
I'm glad you said "no", because this illustrates my point that the winning (or losing) of a legal trial does not in and of itself have bearing on the issue. The whole issue is highly politicized, and from my perspective, a system which is built on a kind of 'orthodoxy' is bound to resist.
About those facts that stare you in the face ... How about us hearing one or two.
Oh Stephen. I respect your faith, but this statement is complete fabrication. Since when is taking a bunch of fanatics to court for trying to force their dogma on children by presenting creationism as scientific fact, a slur? You fail to recognize who won the case.
This statement is so loaded with prejudice that I hardly need to say anything.
To say that ID is composed of religious fanatics is a fabrication. Several of them are agnostic. Others hold religions which do not oppose evolution as dogma (such as Michael Behe), and therefore their criticisms of Darwinism reasonably would have to be based on something else.
Heh. All scientific study is based on the testing of a proposed model (Theory) That's why it's called science.
Okay, then tell me in detail how far we've come on the "testing" of abiogenesis.
Me: It's not unreasonable. But that doesn't make it scientifically irrefutable...... Similarities in Picasso's works do not imply that one painting gradually became another.
Turtle: Well now, I suppose if you could breed Picasso's paintings we might see a progressive change.
....Is there even a point here?
Analogies, by nature, are always limited. But yes there is a point; namely that direct organic connection is not a corollary of similarities in form. If Evolutionists can cite the evolution of automobiles, and computer generated "evolution", and fail to see the implications of intelligent design in their analogies ... I suppose I get to use Picasso.
ID purposes that each species has it's own tree of life.
Not necessarily. Different ID thinkers have differed here. The ID claim, as far as I understand, is much more basic ... claiming that rather than attributing all bio-diversity to random-mutation/natural-selection, it should be admitted that there is no evidence of complex biological systems having been formed incrementally step by step. Michael Behe is one ID'er, who entertains the thought that a common ancestor might actually be plausible, but still insists that complex biological systems didn't just randomly form mutation by mutation. To believe so may have scientific implications, but it is more philosophy than science.
Darwin's theory suggests that there is one tree of life and all species are a branch off that tree.
Which has been anything but problem free. The fossil record is atrocious at demonstrating this. What do you make of the Cambrian Exposion, as it relates to Darwin?
ID might have been a plausible argument prior to our understanding of DNA
ID is even more plausible since our understanding of DNA, since we now know that virtually all repeatable mutations result in what is detrimental to survival. Fruit flies with too many wings die, they don't fly better. What has not been proven, not even an inkling, is that the wings that are there came about through mutation.
if ID were true then the DNA of each species would not be related to the others.
Similar to the homology argument, you are assuming that an Intelligent designer hasn't used the same "building blocks" in his design. That doesn't mean that we should extrapolate that a seeing eye had to incrementally develop from a light sensitive spot. One may believe so, of course. But it is so far in the realm of conjecture, that to call it "fact", when scientists can't even begin to explain the process in any testable form ... is more than presumptive.
if ID were true then the DNA of each species would not be related to the others. Today's understanding of DNA says that all living things are related.
ID says that all living things are related.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation with one's own eyes. A chimpanzee LOOKS more like a human than a dog. A dog LOOKS more human than a fruit-fly. A fruit-fly LOOKS more human than a banana. and the DNA evidence says our eyes are seeing what DNA explains.
Are you allowed that "common sense" kind of intuition, as a basis for a system which tends to disallow the same for other views? Remember that Richard Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
I would say, with Dawkins, that appearances favor Intelligent Design more than Common Descent.
Stephen, I honestly admire your faith ...
And I honestly admire yours.
The Bible doesn't say that God created a species that evolved into man, as ID suggests. It says God created man as a whole and complete being. This entire argument of ID is a mere fabrication created to counter the theory of evolution.
I highly recommend that those of faith abandon this fabrication that is counter to both the Bible AND science. There is no need for this, it is your faith that matters not how we got here.
Now this is the most amazing argument as of yet. You're asking me to accept that ID is incompatible with the Christian Faith as rooted in the Bible (which I disagree with emphatically), by taking a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis, and in the same breath espousing a theory which would be utterly at odds with such a literalist interpretation. You urge me to reject a theory which you think is at odds with science and the Bible ... and then strangely ask me to embrace both, though you've already made it clear that you think both can't be true.
First of all, ID does not suggest that humankind developed from another species... though a person who believes in ID may believe that. As I said before its central claims are much more basic than that ... being more critical of species-to-species evolution based upon lack of evidence to support it. So in that sense, it is quite compatible with the Bible's view of Special Creation.
I think you also make Genesis more rigid than it has to be. For example, though some espouse an Earth just a few thousand years old, the text tells us that God didn't create the "sun moon and stars" until the 4th day ... giving us a clue that perhaps the "days" need not be literal 24-hour days, but a simple literary device by which historical creation is described. This has been noted by several Church Fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, and other post-Reformation Theologians. I mention this to suggest that the Bible may be more accomodating of sciecne (that happens to be accurate) than you might suspect.
Still, If I believed your ultra-literal view of Genesis, ID would be much more compatible with it than Darwinian Evolution. As it stands, I reject Darwinian Evolution for lack of scientific evidence ... but I think if you're going to believe in Evolution, its still your best bet to think that Genesis may accomodate it, and to concede with G.K. Chesterton when he said that a slow miracle would still be a miracle.