1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

PBS to show Intelligent Design Documentary

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Kathryn, May 22, 2003.

  1. Meatros

    Meatros New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    ID is supposedly a field of study in biology-correct? Dembski isn't qualified in that field.

    In any event, whatever. If others want to watch this they are welcome to. I had enough of Behe and his illogical and made up arguments in "darwin's black box".

    Just some points:

    Behe accepts Common descent.
    ID is dependent (at least behe's) on an old earth.
     
  2. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Intelligent design theory occupies a strange location in the evolution debate.

    Intelligent design per se does not rule out common descent or deep time in the history of life. As such is it less a burden to the knowledgeable mind.
    On the other hand, it amounts to nothing more than a denial that variation and natural selection can work, asserting that what we see in the history and development of life is obviously to complex for such a simple mechanism.

    That's not really much of a theory. The history of science is over and over a triumph of the less than obvious over what was formerly common sense. Perhaps with some more work it could be raised to the level of driving some inquiries into where unaided evolution needed and received some help.

    The popularity of intelligent design theory is driven not by the quality of the science but by the hunger for making room for God somewhere in science. It is often used by people who completely deny the true age of the earth and common descent to bolster their evidence - ignoring point of view. This is baggage that discredits intelligence design theory, perhaps unfairly.

    Historically we have often failed miserably when it comes to mixing God and science. Today we find the best science is done by ignoring the "God" aspect of reality while we do our science. This speaks loudly about our ability to find God on our own, without His help!

    Intelligent design theory, at this time, does not really have anything to contribute to the study of evolution.
     
  3. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul of Eugene:

    Albert Einstein who developed the Theory of Relativity, although not a particularly religious Jew, once said:

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

    [ May 22, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you and Einstein. That makes three of us, so it must be true! [​IMG]
     
  5. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is more than just the three of us. [​IMG]

    In 2001 Dr. Collins Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute said:
    [Forty-eight years ago, Watson and Crick introduced DNAs elegant double helix to the world in the pages of Nature. With extravagant understatement, they began their letter to Nature by noting - and I quote - [This structure has novel features, which are of considerable biological interest.] Today, we're here to offer further evidence of just how considerable.

    Last June, we announced that researchers had collected 90 percent of the DNA letters that make up the text of the human genome sequence. Now we have achieved another major advance - by reading, from cover to cover, the first draft of this [Book of Life] and reporting on the stunning surprises we encountered along the way.

    As you will hear today, this Book of Life is actually at least three books. Its a history book: a narrative of the journey of our species through time. It's a shop manual: an incredibly detailed blueprint for building every human cell. And its a transformative textbook of medicine: with insights that will give health care providers immense new powers to treat, prevent and cure disease. We are delighted by what we've already seen in these books. But we are also profoundly humbled by the privilege of turning the pages that describe the miracle of human life, written in the mysterious language of all the ages, the language of God .] ( Dr. Francis S. Collins Director, National Human Genome Research Institute)

    The Human Genome Project in now essentially complete, 50 years later. The director re-stated last month that we now have the blueprint previously known only to God.

    God Bless
     
  6. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is amazing about the DNA discovery 50 years ago and the completion of the Human Genome project today is that Watson and Crick were atheists who believed their work proved God does not exist. With the decoding now 50 years later of the human DNA…, it shows us God’s blueprint of man.

    Crick was very outspoken about his intentions of discrediting God.

    "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery. "I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that. I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs: the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness." (Crick)

    Here is the official site of the Human Genome Project. It gives credit where credit is due...God, not random chance.

    http://www.genome.gov


    God Bless

    [ May 22, 2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  7. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consider the great casinos of the world. Here, random chance might make you rich when you play there. Now there are times when the house stacks the deck and manipulates the wheel but we all know that even when the games are "honest" somehow it works out that the house makes money over the long haul.

    How can that be when its all a matter of games of chance?

    It's in the fundamental design of the games themselves, of course, the odds are fundamentally designed to be in favor of the operation of the laws of chance bringing about the outcome desired by those who frame the rules of the game.

    My advice: don't gamble. But I want to make a point.

    Even if evolution has a random element in it - and we all know the theory does have that element in it - that does not mean there wasn't a designer who set up the house rules in the first place to achieve His desired outcome! But you don't find it by analyzing the throws of the dice. You look for it in the rules of the game.
     
  8. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    I think the significance of the credentials (or lack thereof) of the 8 ID ph>D.s is being misunderstood here.

    I do not attach--and I think it is unreasonable to attatch--any significance whatsoever to any individual's lack of formal qualification in evolutionary biology. ID purports to be an interdisciplinary field of study. (And whatever its failings may be, in this it is undoubtedly successful!) One would expects its proponents (and its detractors also) to have diverse bockgrounds and qualifications. Therefore it does not bother me at all that Dembsky has published nothing on evolutionary biology. It would have been nice if he had found a collaborator with experience in evolutionary biology, but his failure to do so can hardly be decisive.

    That said, the lack of apparent education in or professional experience with evolutionary biology of the 8 Ph.D.s AS A GROUP ought to raise concern; after all, ID is a multidisciplinary field, and one of the most promiinent things it tries to discuss is evolutionary biology.
     
  9. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>Here is the official site of the Human Genome Project. It gives credit where credit is due...God, not random chance.<<<<<

    Where is that exactly? Maybe I overlooked that part but I didn't see that.
     
  10. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>>Albert Einstein who developed the Theory of Relativity, although not a particularly religious Jew, once said:

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)<<<<<
    ................................................
    But you might be surprised at how loosely Einstein defined religion. Do you know what else he said about it? Here is a sample, which is an answer to a letter:

    "I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    And in another context, Einstein wrote:

    "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

    My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."

    ...............................................
    I don't believe that Einstein should necessarily be taken as an expert on religion, whatever his views. But if you are going to quote Einstein, it is incumbent upon you to give an accurate account of his beliefs, which were quite different from what you have implied.

    [ May 28, 2003, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]
     
  11. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peter 101:

    I never called Einstein an expert on religion. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I said:

    "Albert Einstein who developed the Theory of Relativity, although not a particularly religious Jew , once said:"

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

    I never portrayed Albert Einstien as anyone but, a not particularly religious Jew .


    God Bless

    [ May 28, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  12. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    M. D. Kluge :
    Dr. Dean Kenyon not only has experience in evolutionary biology, but is an expert on Evolutionary Biology. His work was the textbook on Evolutionary Biology for many years in colleges and universities throughout the country. Dr. Dean Kenyon literally wrote the book on the chemical evolution of life. Dean Kenyon was senior biology professor, who some 25 years ago was the co-author of Biochemical Predestination, a standard work advocating the orthodox theory that life first began on earth when a primitive organism evolved from organic chemicals in a prebiotic soup. He was one of the first who developed a theory on how life began in the thick primordial soup of early earth.


    Dean Kenyon: Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University, S.B. in physics, 1961 from the University of Chicago; Ph.D. in Biophysics, 1965 from Stanford University; National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Follow 1965-1966 at the University of California, Berkeley; visiting scholar in 1974 to Trinity College, Oxford University; Associate, Chemical Evolution Branch, NASA-Ames Research Center in California, 1974-1976; Phi Beta Kappa. Co-author of Of Pandas and People (Haughton Publishing Co. 1989) ; co-author of Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill 1969).

    For over 20 years no one questioned Dr. Dean Kenyon's credentials as a formost authority on biological evolution. Universities all over the country used his research and textbook.

    God Bless

    [ May 28, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  13. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Kathryn wrote:
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree with Dr. Collins. And when I see a flower I see God beneath that flower, and believe that it is God's flower. And when I see the stars I marvel at the sublime creation of Him who created those stars. And when I see a baby I see the image of Him who so recently gave it life.

    But there is a subtle difference between me and Dr. Colllins on the one hand, and Intelligent Design adherents on the other. Dr. Collins and I see the language of God in the genetic code, but we do not say that this is proof of, or even evidence of God's existence or action, as opposed to God's nonexistence or non-action.

    If I may be permitted to apply the anthropomorphism of "God as Designer" (I prefer to call God the Creator), I might well say that I see the design of God in the human genetic code (or in a flower, etc.) I might do so, however, because I already would know God as the Designer, and so would be prepared to see HIs wonderous design anywhere; but seeing evidence of His Design is not the same as seeing evidence that He is the Designer.

    The failure to make that distinction is, in my view, the main failure of Intelligent Design Theorists and their followers. Intelligent Design Theorists think it amazing that they can demonstrate (at least to their own satisfaction) that God actually designed something. This brings to mind Samuel Johnson's remarks on a horse that could count. Dr. Johnson said,words to the effect that "it's not that he doesn't count well, but that he counts at at all!" Intelligent Design theorists, by emphasizing their "oroofs" that God actually designed something, reduce the Creator to the level of Samuel Johnson's horse.
     
  14. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    M.D. Kludge says:
    How do you know that Intelligent Design Theorists think it "amazing that they can demonstrate (at least to their own satisfaction) that God actually designed something"?

    Do you read the minds and hearts of these men and women?

    God Bless
     
  15. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Kathry wrote:
    Because that's all they write about. There's little or no interest in any supposed process of design, any constraiints on design, what considerations went into the design, etc. Only the alleged fact of design interests them.

    Yes. I read their literature. Presuming that they are honest intellectuals their thoughts are written in their literature, which I read.
     
  16. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Kathryn quote me way out of context: The antecedent of the pronoun "he" in the quote below is "William Dembski". Kathryn quotes:
    To this Kathryn responds, above, with credentials of one Dr. Dean Kenyon. Said Dr. Dean Kenyon was not to my knowledge a significant collaborator of Dembski in producing the latter's explanatory filter for detecting design.

    It would still be nice if WILLIAM DEMBSKI had found a collaborator with experience in evolutionary biology, but his failure to do so can hardly be decisive.
     
  17. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    M.D. Kludge

    You said:
    I know Dr. Dean Kenyon, and he does not think it amazing that he can demonstrate (at least to his own satisfaction) that God actually designed something . I challenge you to find this thought in his Intelligent Design textbook…. Of Pandas and People, The Central Question of Biological Origins. It was not a thought expressed by any of the scientists in the video PBS is airing, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”...which this thread is about.

    Your little “talking horse” story doesn’t stand without your false allegation that the Intelligent Design Theorists “think it amazing that they can demonstrate (at least to their own satisfaction) that God actually designed something”. There is no reduction of the Creator to the level of Samuel Johnson’s horse. You are actually going beyond simply trying to read their minds and hearts. With your little horse story, you are saying these men and women are saying it is not that God doesn't create well, it is amazing God could create at all! This is blasphemous to God and bearing false witness on people you do not know.

    God Bless

    [ June 01, 2003, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  18. Kathryn

    Kathryn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will restate Dr. Dean Kenyon’s credentials as a response to your entire post, so you will see that I have not taken anything out of context. :

    M. D. Kluge:
    Dr. Dean Kenyon (one of the eight scientists on the video) not only has experience in evolutionary biology, but is an expert on Evolutionary Biology. His work was the textbook on Evolutionary Biology for many years in colleges and universities throughout the country. Dr. Dean Kenyon literally wrote the book on the chemical evolution of life. Dean Kenyon was senior biology professor, who some 25 years ago was the co-author of Biochemical Predestination, a standard work advocating the orthodox theory that life first began on earth when a primitive organism evolved from organic chemicals in a prebiotic soup. He was one of the first who developed a theory on how life began in the thick primordial soup of early earth.


    Dean Kenyon: Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University, S.B. in physics, 1961 from the University of Chicago; Ph.D. in Biophysics, 1965 from Stanford University; National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Follow 1965-1966 at the University of California, Berkeley; visiting scholar in 1974 to Trinity College, Oxford University; Associate, Chemical Evolution Branch, NASA-Ames Research Center in California, 1974-1976; Phi Beta Kappa. Co-author of Of Pandas and People (Haughton Publishing Co. 1989) ; co-author of Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill 1969).

    For over 20 years no one questioned Dr. Dean Kenyon's credentials as a formost authority on biological evolution. Universities all over the country used his research and textbook.


    God Bless
     
  19. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Kathryn wrote:
    Perhaps I should not have used the word "amazing", which seems to have become a shibboleth for Kathryn. By ID theorists thinking it amazing that they can demonstrate design I mean that demonstrating the existence of design or a designer is all they try to do. Dembski's filter seeks to demonstrate the absurdity of life arising by something other than design. That's all. Behe seeks to demonstrate that some supposedly irreduciblly complex systems could not have evolved except with the guiding hand of some design. Nothing more. NOthing actually about the design or designer. Just the alleged fact of the design and designer. That is why I think ID theorists display the same contempt for their subject that Dr. Johnson displayed towards the counting hourse.
     
  20. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Kathry wrote:
    Well, you can try to restate your argument in context, but your original out-of-context statement stands. Your current attempt to put your remarks in context is laudible; but no one can plausibly see that you have not taken anything out of context. You wrote what you wrote, and what you wrote was out of context. You are free to correct what you wrote; but you may not nothing you write can take your previously out-of-context quote and put it back into context.

    However, I shall go the extra mile and accept your new context for your old argument. Still you fail on the merrits. I asked for credentials in evolutionary biology. You gave me Kenyon's credentials in origin of life.

    For the sake of argument, though, let us suppose that Kenyon also has done lots and lots of work on evolutionary biology (other than on the origin of life). That's one in 8 having such credentials. Why is that field so underrepresented in the group as a whole? Or more generally, to ID theorists as a group?

    I don't want to make lack of credentials decisive. You should read some of the ID literature and decide whether it's garbage or whether there might be something to it. It should concern you, however that there is evident lack of widespread credentials in evolutionary biology amongst ID theorists.
     
Loading...