On 1 Jan 2006 07:48:52 -0800, "Tim Campbell" <timcall@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
So intelligent design simply says that some alien intelligence
invented life on Earth?
Gee, great theory. Now you have the nasty problem of no evidence of
that and no way to explain how the alien intelligence itself got
created.
Or is it intelligent aliens all the way back! LOL!!
Look, the reason why it's not science is it doesn't help explain
anything. If an alien invented life then it must have planted it here
a billion years ago and left it to develop. To explain that
development you STILL need a microevolution and macroevolution theory.
What I hear IDers saying is they don't believe microevolution and
macroevolution could drive high complex features such as eyes and
bird's wings and such. But they appear to concede that life does
develop naturally to some extent.
So this means the intelligent being had to step in and manually
fabricate certain features of creatures where nature couldn't do the
job.
That is an absurd idea not to mention bizarre and kind of ghoulish.
And you still have the problem that there are no known artificial
processes that could engineer said features. How do you take an
inferior eye out of a partially naturally developed creature and plug
in an intelligently designed superior eye?
Absurd. Idiotic. And why??
And an undertaking such as designing and refining physical features of
living things and filling up a whole planet seems to me would've left
quite a footprint on our world. These aliens must've been living here
for hundreds of millions of years. Because many long since extinct
creatures over many countless millenia had highly complex features too
and would have needed designing and refining.
Why has no evidence for these life designers been found?
Face it. It's a dumb theory if it's a theory at all. More like
wishful thinking.
>
>By John G. West
>Pyrrhic victory.
>It's a phrase proponents of Darwin's theory might do well to ponder as
>they crow over the decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania
>"permanently enjoining" the Dover school district from mentioning the
>theory of intelligent design in science cl*****.
>Contrary to Judge John Jones' assertions, intelligent design is not a
>religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
>that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
>universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. No legal
>decree can remove the digitally coded information from DNA, nor
>molecular machines from cells. The facts of biology cannot be overruled
>by a federal judge. Research on intelligent design will continue to go
>forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.
>Still, Darwinists clearly won this latest skirmish in the evolution
>wars. But at what cost?
>Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and
>academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they
>have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censor****p
>of dissent.
>Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At
>Ohio State University, a graduate student's dissertation is in limbo
>because he was openly critical of Darwin's theory. At George Mason
>University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned
>intelligent design in class. At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary
>biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring
>intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.
>Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent
>design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves.
>Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't
>permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate
>even more interest in it.
>Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to
>shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and
>judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort
>to censor****p and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are
>championing dogmatism, not science.
>John G. West is associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for
>Science & Culture, andassociate professor of political science at
>Seattle Pacific University.
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-oppose_x.htm
|
