Intelignet Design Debate Heats UP in the Blogs
Tuesday I linked to Dean Esmay's Post "A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design." Dean is a non-theist and a believer in Darwinism but sees Intelligent Design as "harmless twaddle." His post sparked opposition from bloggers and even snarky remarks from some commenters here and here. I agree with him that it is an overreaction to something that looks harmless.
One of the main objections put forth from the oppositin to ID being taught in classrooms is that it isn't science. That may be true, but then what passes for science in evolution is of more often philosophy. One of Dean's commenters Scott Harris pretty much sums up my feelings.
Be sure to check Deans World for more links including William Dembski's Expert Witness Report (pdf).
One of the main objections put forth from the oppositin to ID being taught in classrooms is that it isn't science. That may be true, but then what passes for science in evolution is of more often philosophy. One of Dean's commenters Scott Harris pretty much sums up my feelings.
The problem with Science, as it is being taught, is that life begins by spontaneous incarnation. There is absolutely ZERO, ZIP, NADA evidence for such an assertion. It is just the best guess of scientists who do not want to acknowledge EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of God.
Back to Fred Reed:
Back to Fred Reed:
I was probably in college when I found myself asking what seemed to me straightforward questions about the chemical origin of life. In particular:If scientists would get out of the business of trying to undermine religious beliefs in the classroom, then presenting science would not be an issue. But they present as FACTS what are really mere ASSERTIONS. There is no way to scientifically demonstrate the validity of their proposals on the origin of life...
(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.
The answer was, and is, “no.” We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn’t nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.
(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn’t, and hasn’t. (Note 1)
(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn’t, and don’t.
(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn’t, and can’t. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.) (Note 2)
Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can’t show it to be statistically probable—why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?
My point was not that evolutionists were necessarily wrong. I simply didn’t see the evidence. While they couldn’t demonstrate that life had begun by chemical accident, I couldn’t show that it hadn’t. An inability to prove that something is statistically possible is not the same as proving that it is not possible. Not being able to reproduce an event in the laboratory does not establish that it didn’t happen in nature. Etc.
I just didn’t know how life came about. I still don’t. Neither do evolutionists.
Be sure to check Deans World for more links including William Dembski's Expert Witness Report (pdf).
Related Posts (on one page):
- Intelignet Design Debate Heats UP in the Blogs
- Separation of State and School, or Rational Thought?
Posted Thursday October 6, 2005 | Catagory: (Science & Technology) | Permalink
6 Comments | 0 Trackbacks
6 Comments | 0 Trackbacks