| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"art" |
| Date: |
05 May 2004 02:06:58 PM |
| Object: |
Intelligent Design Question |
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
.
|
|
| User: "Stephen" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 04:57:15 PM |
|
|
"art" <art@vandelayindustries.org> wrote in message
news:mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51...
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose
do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology
nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much
each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
These ID freaks of nature are the evil scumbags doing the rounds at schools
in the US, harrassing lecturers into not teaching evolution, and use the
"ID" as a smokescreen for the usual god-squad drivel, dressing it up as some
kind of 'science'. It's all just the usual fundamentalists trying to get
clever because their old "message" wasn't brainwashing enough new recruits
anymore. All you need to do is remember this fact - you need no books to
tell you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 10:11:30 PM |
|
|
"art" <art@vandelayindustries.org> wrote in message
news:mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51...
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose
do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology
nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much
each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Any science text book that deals with any part of the subject you are
interested in.
ID is not science.
You might also want to know that the mouse trap the ID'ers are so found of
is not irreducibly complex. A mouse trap can be made from just one of it's
parts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 05:40:40 PM |
|
|
"art" <art@vandelayindustries.org> wrote in message
news:mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51...
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose
do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology
nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
And there's the problem right there. The complexity is not an argument in
favor of design, it's an argument in favor of 4 billion years of cluges and
jury-rigging.
If you can imagine a way to improve any part of your body, then if there was
a designer you have to ask yourself why it isn't that way already.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 05:08:43 PM |
|
|
And it came to pass that "art" <art@vandelayindustries.org> did write in
alt.atheism, news:mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks
propose do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm
believer in evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm
a radiology nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human
body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all
events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how
much each organ depends on other organs or systems.
Unfortunately much of the ID position is an argument from ignorance (look
at X - it's too complex to have evolved, therefore it must have been
designed). As you say, the human body is very complex and interdependent.
Evolutionary theory can explain this, as natural selection is working on
all parts of an organism at the same time (but will have different
effects on different structures in the body). It's not really surprising
that this leads to interdependencies.
Many of the ID candidates for irreducibly complex structures have been
debunked (bacterial flagella, for example).
I'm not convinced
that the only other possible explanation for human existance is an all
powerful invisble man up in the sky but all the responses from
evolutionists on irreducible complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can
anyone recomend a good book that counters the arguments that the ID
community presents? Thanks
I can recommend you a web site. This is a sister site of the excellent
talkorigins site which deals specifically with ID:
http://www.talkdesign.org/
This page touches on some of the "irreducibly complex" human systems,
such as blood clotting:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 06:24:32 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "art"
<art@vandelayindustries.org> let us all know that:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
ID is just another name for literal genesis creation. The
cretinists are just too dishonest to admit it. That's all you need to
know.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 09:26:17 PM |
|
|
In article <mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51>,
"art" <art@vandelayindustries.org> wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
The irreducible complexity idea is *****. Reading a little about
comparitive biology would help.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" would help a lot.
Also, taking a little time to learn some techniques of critical thinking
would be something of a help.
Otherwise, you'll next be coming around here, asking us what we think of
the Anthropic Principle or Pascal's Wager.
Oy!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 04:50:03 AM |
|
|
In article <mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51>,
[art] wrote...
George Costanza?
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
For example?
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them.
What are some of the few that you do find impressive?
[BTW, the folks over in talk.origins might be a better newsgroup
for this discussion.]
I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity.
Why should "irreducible complexity" be any problem for evolutionary
science? AFAICT, there's no good reason why "irreducibly complex"
things [if any such actually do exist in biology] can't evolve.
Do the ID "theorists" [as if they had a scientific theory to
present] really even argue that no "IC" things could possibly
evolve? I'd the impression that they don't explicitly make
any such claim [nor do they support such a conclusion with
evidence].
I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
And familiar human-designed things tend to be rather simple,
compared to "evolved", natural things. The ID creationists really
ought to be making claims about "irreducible simplicity" if
they wanted to argue that things look "intelligently designed".
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this.
Like?
I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems.
Why would any "evolutionist" expect otherwise? Of course the parts of
organisms are functionally interdependent. After all, they're the
products of many millions of years of evolution in these functional
associations [and/or their precursors].
This interdependency still won't be any problem for their evolution.
I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky
But that's to be seen as one plausible explanation?
but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all.
Why not? Can you criticize any specific aspects of any specific
responses? What responses have you seen, exactly?
Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Try the talk.origins newsgroup and its excellent FAQ
archives:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkdesign.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
The t.o. archive is searchable, e.g.:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=behe&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
http://www.google.com/custom?q=design&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 05:43:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 2004 05:06:58 +1000, art wrote
(in article <mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51>):
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory. I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the
ID folks propose do not impress me though, in fact most of them.
I was a firm believer in evolution until I read about
irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse and I know first
hand just how complex the human body is.
So if most of their ideas don't impress you, why are you convinced
they are onto something?
[BTW: being a nurse doesn't make you an authority on the
'complexity' of the human/mammalian body - maybe if you were a
research physiologist, endocrinologist, molecular biologist,
or....]
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all
events I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position
on this. I've thought about everything I've witnessed that
Have you thought about the things which contradict it - e.g. the
existence of different blood types, the existence of 'better'
(functionally) non-homologous organs in species other than our own
(see link below), the existence of vestigial structures, homologies
between disparate species (e.g. our inner ear bones cf reptillian
jaw bones), ...
Cephalopod vs vertebrate eyes:
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Biology/midorcas/animalphysiology/websit
es/2003/Muller/
or:
http://tinyurl.com/3gm2a
Reptile -> Mammalian evolution
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html
Verificationism is counting hits and ignoring misses.
demonstrates just how much each organ depends on other organs or
systems. I'm not convinced that the only other possible
explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble man
up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on
irreducible complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone
recomend a good book that counters the arguments that the ID
community presents? Thanks
http://www.talkdesign.org/
probably includes a good reading list, as well as arguments in
situ.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "art" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 07:44:01 PM |
|
|
Thats good stuff, I'll take some time and study all the resources that
everyone has given me and maybe I can come to sort of conclusion. Thanks to
everyone who responded to my post.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 10:29:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 +0000 in episode
<mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51> we saw our hero "art"
<art@vandelayindustries.org>:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose
do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology
nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much
each organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the
only other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful
invisble man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on
irreducible complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a
good book that counters the arguments that the ID community presents?
I'm sure other folks will chime in with suggestions. About the only thing
I have to say is read Richard Dawkins (such as _The Blind Watchmaker_, etc.).
In general, though, I have to say this. The ID "argument" is merely a
redress of Paley's "watchmaker" drivel. An "argument" that is deeply
flawed.
If you were to--as Paley posits--find a watch in a forest, you come to the
conclusion it is a thing designed and built by intelligence because you
*already know what that looks like.*
You go into that forest *knowing humans exist, *knowing humans make
machinery, *knowing humans use metal, *knowing what a watch is, *knowing
watches are made by humans... and on and on...
You come from a society in which the making of watches is a common,
ordinary thing. You can go meet the designers, watch the devices being
built, look at the design plans, study the process, even build your own.
Not a *single *bit of this is true in the case of life itself. You've
never seen a god, never watched one create anything, never seen the design
plans, never studied the creation process, never created life yourself...
On what basis can anyone conclude that life is "designed?" There is none.
The Paley "argument" is dishonest. It glosses over the very large body of
knowledge you have that enables you to even *notice* the watch. If you
really knew nothing of watches at all, would you conclude it was a
designed object?
Or would you look at it, think "what the heck is this?," and toss it aside?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 06:49:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 +0000, art wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose
do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology
nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
The current incarnation of the "irreducible complexity" argument is just
a biochemical version of the same argument that was once made for anatomic
structures. Creationists at one time would argue that certain anatomic
structures, such as eyes and feathers, were irreducibly complex, and
therefore couldn't evolve. Through analysis of existing life forms, and
the fossil record, these claims have been refuted. Since there is not
likely to be any fossil record of how flagellae evolved, the IDers are on
more secure ground, though it is still basically an argument from
ignorance.
ALL the "evidence" for ID boils down to this: "I can't imagine how such a
thing could happen without the intervention of a Divine Being, therefore
such a Being must have intervened." That argument is about as strong as
wet Kleenex, but, unfortunately, it does have a certain sales appeal to
people who don't give it much thought.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 11:38:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "art" <art@vandelayindustries.org>
wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
How can you *know* that something actually is irreducibly complex?
You can say "Wow seems pretty complex to me! I can't see how it could
have evolved from simpler systems!" - but just because you don't see
how something happened (or don't see just yet) doesn't mean it didn't
happen.
Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough, perhaps you are not smart
enough, perhaps you are not imaginative enough.
Things "seem" impossible until someone figures out how its done - then
it "seems" obvious!
In other words the whole ID thing comes down to:
"Argument from personal incredulity" (argument from lack of
imagination !)
And
"argument from ignorance"
I don't know/understand how X happened - so it didn't.!
Or
I don't know/understand how X happened - so God did it.!
Its not intellectually very noble or edifying is it?
It's a good thing that some people see the mysteies - the unknowns -
as a challenge - not as a reason to give up looking.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 043 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pan" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 05:43:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "art" <art@vandelayindustries.org>
wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I'm an ICU nurse.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all.
Years ago I was an evangelical Christian.
Even back then I doubt if I would have been very impressed with the
idea of "irreducible complexity".
e.g. How do you know something is "irreducible"? --> Science has
come up with some pretty good explanations as to how some things may
have evolved which at first might have seemed "irreducible" (e.g.
flight feathers, the eye)
And why would this 'god' decide to create life using the process of
evolution 99.999..% of the time, but then decide to create a
relatively few odd features (e.g. bacterial flagella) by bypassing
evolution altogether?
Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
pan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
14 May 2004 03:35:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "art" <art@vandelayindustries.org>,
Message ID: <mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51> wrote in alt.atheism;
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
1) It's not a theory.
2) It's anything but intelligent.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
.............suuuuuuurrrrrreeee you are. Nice try, though.
Please repeat primary education and stay awake this time.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Try;
a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the
principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical
observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and
testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the
organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
www.coris.noaa.gov/glossary/glossary_l_z.html
The study of the natural world through observation, identification,
description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm
Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. To do science, one must follow
a specific universal methodology. The central theme in this methodology
is the testing of hypotheses and the ability to make predictions. The
overall goal of science is to better understand nature and our Universe.
www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/s.html
Sites distributing information related to scientific exploration. These
include science exhibits, science museums, science organizations,
science laboratories, and academic institutions.
www.webbyawards.com/main/webby_awards/cat_defs.html
knowledge in general
etext.lib.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/resources/dictionary.html
the process of gaining knowledge based on making repeated observations
about nature in controlled conditions (experimentation) and attempting
to explain what causes those observations (theorizing) through
constructing hypotheses that can be tested experimentally. Science's
only purpose is to gain knowledge. Sometimes that knowledge may
eventually lead to things mankind finds useful technology.
www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/chemistry/mission2mars/contents/glossary/s.htm
The body of related courses concerned with knowledge of the physical and
biological world and with the processes of discovering and validating
this knowledge.
www.nces.ed.gov/pubsold/D95/defins3.html
Literally 'knowledge', science is the synthesis of the systematic study
of every aspect of our experience of reality, especially objective
reality, usually with the aim of reducing it to a logically-consistent
system of order (though modern science accepts many paradoxes, if often
with evident discomfort). The public image of science's worldview is
generally, though incorrectly, that of scientism; in practice, the
development of science depends extensively on the intuitive mode as well
as analysis.
www.tomgraves.com.au/index.php
The enterprise by which a particular kind of ordered knowledge is
obtained about natural phenomena by means of controlled observation and
theoretical interpretation
www.esb.utexas.edu/surge/Resources&Links/glossary.htm
Systematic and formulated knowledge of a subject, obtained by scientific
method that uses postulates to span the gaps left by the limited human
means of obtaining knowledge and then tests the conclusions in every
possible way.
www.chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/religion/bahai/sr/definit.html
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
06 May 2004 05:07:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:06:58 GMT, art wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
Irreducible complexity is a farce, which is disproven every time two
people conceive a child. After about nine months, what was originally a
single cell has grown, step by step, into all of the structures that
idiots like Behe claim are irreducibly complex.
I know, I know. That's not quite what they mean. They're not saying that
an eye can't be built piece by piece, but that it can't be designed step
by step. It's really only a minor divergence, however, once a bit of
careful thought is spent on the matter. At every step in the
embryological development of an eye, a change in the next step can in
principle be controlled by genes, to produce an infinite variety of eyes,
each of different capabilities.
For any apparently irreducibly complex organ, there's a series of small
changes, each providing some level of improvement, that lead there. Those
claiming actual irreducible complexity are merely displaying to the world
how limited their imaginations and powers of reasoning are.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 02:30:48 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach art:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks
propose do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm
believer in evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a
radiology nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human body
is.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. Imagine what the writers of
the bible would have thought of a DVD player.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much
each organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that
the only other possible explanation for human existance is an all
powerful invisble man up in the sky but all the responses from
evolutionists on irreducible complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can
anyone recomend a good book that counters the arguments that the ID
community presents? Thanks
You could start here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 02:35:39 PM |
|
|
(Vic Sagerquist) said:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach art:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks
propose do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm
believer in evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a
radiology nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human body
is.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. Imagine what the writers of
the bible would have thought of a DVD player.
Or of the idea of germs.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 11:57:27 PM |
|
|
art <art@vandelayindustries.org> wrote in message
news:mXamc.38170$I%1.2426362@attbi_s51...
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design
theory. I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID
folks propose do not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a
firm believer in evolution until I read about irreducible complexity.
I'm a radiology nurse and I know first hand just how complex the human
body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much
each organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that
the only other possible explanation for human existance is an all
powerful invisble man up in the sky but all the responses from
evolutionists on irreducible complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can
anyone recomend a good book that counters the arguments that the ID
community presents? Thanks
I can do better: I can show you irreducibly complex systems evolving in
real time without intelligent intervention.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A830D01.915FD5E5%40hotmail.com
The above link (which gives a reference to a peer-reviewed journal article)
discusses the evolution in bacteria of an irreducibly complex enzyme
pathway to break down pentachlorophenol, a highly toxic, highly artificial
chemical.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#creationists:ic
This link discusses the use of a genetic algorithm (a computer program that
designs complex systems through a process of mutation and selection) to
evolve an irreducibly complex voice-recognition circuit consisting of 37
logic gates, all of which are required for the circuit to work.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Question |
05 May 2004 05:02:00 PM |
|
|
art wrote:
I've recently read some literature about the intelligent design theory.
I find it really fascinating, some of the ideas that the ID folks propose do
not impress me though, in fact most of them. I was a firm believer in
evolution until I read about irreducible complexity. I'm a radiology nurse
and I know first hand just how complex the human body is.
I've given this a lot of thought. I've thought alot about all events
I've witnessed as a nurse that confirms the ID position on this. I've
thought about everything I've witnessed that demonstrates just how much each
organ depends on other organs or systems. I'm not convinced that the only
other possible explanation for human existance is an all powerful invisble
man up in the sky but all the responses from evolutionists on irreducible
complexity do not satisfy me at all. Can anyone recomend a good book that
counters the arguments that the ID community presents? Thanks
No, but I can give you an analogy I like for "irreducibly complex"
systems in human physiology. Without a graphics card or a hard drive,
the machine that sits on your desk is simply a doorstop. The first
computers I ever played with were TRS-80s. These had no graphics card,
IIRC. They also definitely did not have a hard drive. They were still
functioning computers, although pretty limited in a lot of ways. And so
it is with bodily organs, There are creatures in the ocean using
earlier, simpler versions of eyes to good effect, for one example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
05 May 2004 06:01:47 PM |
|
|
Nivlem wrote:
No, but I can give you an analogy I like for "irreducibly complex"
systems in human physiology. Without a graphics card or a hard drive,
the machine that sits on your desk is simply a doorstop. The first
computers I ever played with were TRS-80s. These had no graphics card,
IIRC. They also definitely did not have a hard drive. They were still
functioning computers, although pretty limited in a lot of ways. And so
it is with bodily organs, There are creatures in the ocean using
earlier, simpler versions of eyes to good effect, for one example.
Ever hear of Knoppix?
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
05 May 2004 06:55:05 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Nivlem wrote:
No, but I can give you an analogy I like for "irreducibly complex"
systems in human physiology. Without a graphics card or a hard drive,
the machine that sits on your desk is simply a doorstop. The first
computers I ever played with were TRS-80s. These had no graphics
card, IIRC. They also definitely did not have a hard drive. They were
still functioning computers, although pretty limited in a lot of
ways. And so it is with bodily organs, There are creatures in the
ocean using earlier, simpler versions of eyes to good effect, for one
example.
Ever hear of Knoppix?
That gets by me.
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Open up your case and pull the video card out. I think you'll find that
you've got a blank screen after that. What I seem to remember was that a
Trash-80 from '81 or so didn't have the circuitry driving the video
display on a separate card. Could be wrong. It's been a long time. The
hard drive thing is 100% certain. If you didn't stick these enormous,
low-storage capacity floppy disks in the disk drive, the machine just
sat there. Low-end machines had this cheezy tape drive that read and
recorded from audiocassettes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
06 May 2004 05:58:48 PM |
|
|
Nivlem wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Nivlem wrote:
No, but I can give you an analogy I like for "irreducibly complex"
systems in human physiology. Without a graphics card or a hard drive,
the machine that sits on your desk is simply a doorstop. The first
computers I ever played with were TRS-80s. These had no graphics
card, IIRC. They also definitely did not have a hard drive. They were
still functioning computers, although pretty limited in a lot of
ways. And so it is with bodily organs, There are creatures in the
ocean using earlier, simpler versions of eyes to good effect, for one
example.
Ever hear of Knoppix?
That gets by me.
Knoppix is a Live-on-CD version of Linux. One can run it without
a hard drive.
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Open up your case and pull the video card out. I think you'll find that
you've got a blank screen after that. What I seem to remember was that a
Trash-80 from '81 or so didn't have the circuitry driving the video
display on a separate card. Could be wrong. It's been a long time. The
hard drive thing is 100% certain. If you didn't stick these enormous,
low-storage capacity floppy disks in the disk drive, the machine just
sat there. Low-end machines had this cheezy tape drive that read and
recorded from audiocassettes.
Granted, most current machines would need at least something to
plug the monitor into, but one could run a non-GUI newsreader on a
console.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
05 May 2004 07:20:21 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Colin Day:
Nivlem wrote:
No, but I can give you an analogy I like for "irreducibly complex"
systems in human physiology. Without a graphics card or a hard drive,
the machine that sits on your desk is simply a doorstop. The first
computers I ever played with were TRS-80s. These had no graphics
card, IIRC. They also definitely did not have a hard drive. They were
still functioning computers, although pretty limited in a lot of
ways. And so it is with bodily organs, There are creatures in the
ocean using earlier, simpler versions of eyes to good effect, for one
example.
Ever hear of Knoppix?
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Colin Day aa #1500
Why would someone want to?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
06 May 2004 10:32:33 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> writes:
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Why would someone want to?
Speed.
Elf (still using TRN)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Hard drive? We don't need no stinking hard drive! |
06 May 2004 05:59:57 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> writes:
Also, could one use a text-based newsreader without a vide card?
Why would someone want to?
Speed.
Elf (still using TRN)
But does one still need a video card to access a console, or
can one get by with something less?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
