It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New ID Documentary Starring Ben Stein

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Why not wait? Is saying 'we don't know' such a problem? Or do we need definite answers to all questions, even when we have little insight into them? Is ambiguity and uncertainity such a problem? If it makes you feel better, place god in the gaps, many people do.


I have no problem with doubts and gaps but the Design argument , in any shape or form, is the only antidote to a world without God.


That is, it started simple and got more complex over time. And I'm sure you know that fish are suggested to be an evolutionary ancestor. So, if fish can survive without the more complex clotting system we have, it's likely that a fishy ancestor can do the same.


melatonin, you are filling the gaps here with your assumptions which are beyond actual proof. Can't you see what I am getting at, without going round and round in circular arguments? Molecular genetics must try and approach these questions. Oh, and for molecular design of the genome into modules, have you read Shapiro's review. It is really mainstream science and verifiable/falsifiable by evolutionists. Hang on, I'll give you a link:
Shapiro GSA

I cannot object from a neutral viewpoint to anything Shapiro has written. I think you will enjoy the paper and look forward to your comments.


That, essentially, IC-like systems are expected in evolution, and provide no great hurdle or problem. And, further, that IC doesn't even support ID, it's really just an attempt to provide a negative test of evolution, and not really a good one.

So, if we find an IC system. Firstly, it could have evolved. Secondly, it provides no support for ID.


Hmm...I suppose I could agree that IC has problems but let's wait for more evidence to come to light. It is no reason to chuck out a Design argument, of any sort.


Oh, and MM, you should have read earlier posts in this topic about the role of philosophy.




posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I have no problem with doubts and gaps but the Design argument , in any shape or form, is the only antidote to a world without God.


Only if you think not having magical design is a poison.

Ken Miller is a theist and is as fervent as any atheist in his arguments against the neo-Paleyists. You should read his book - Darwin's god.


melatonin, you are filling the gaps here with your assumptions which are beyond actual proof. Can't you see what I am getting at, without going round and round in circular arguments?


But I'm not trying to provide a step-by-step explanation. I'm trying to show you why ID is not science, and why IC = ID is not a good argument.

The argument is that 'IC systems could not have evolved, therefore ID', when, in fact, we know they can.


Hmm...I suppose I could agree that IC has problems but let's wait for more evidence to come to light. It is no reason to chuck out a Design argument, of any sort.


Heh, the design argument will never go away whilst some people feel the need for it. But it's not a scientific argument.

If I could provide a perfect and infallible step-by-step explanation of the evolution of flagella, do you think the ID argument would go away? It would just move to another area of ignorance. In essence, it is an argument from ignorance, generally a result of religious motivation.

ABE: yeah, Shapiro has ideas that are not truly Darwinian, that's cool. There are various evolutionary mechanisms that are non-darwinian. None are evidence for ID. He has ideas about non-random directed mutations, but these are entirely within a natural process, and not some woo magic process.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by melatonin]



new topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join