looking at the evidence

It sounds interesting but I don't $223.00 to buy this!

[ May 03, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: ChurchBoy ]

 

So, Helen, out of all those that attended the conference and were suitably impressed with the marvelous designs found in nature, how many of them would you estimate believe that these designs were the outcome of millions of years of evolution?

 

Helen wrote:

It certainly does matter whether we are talking about a few thousands or a few billions of years. When we speak of design we are not merely speaking of initial and final states. We also speak of process. Remember that "eneineering" is a process, so the papers comparing design in engineering with those of nature will (natuaally) consider processes as well as initial and final states.

 

Helen, you made an assertion earlier, and I'd be interested in knowing where this happens:

Barbarian asks:
I can't believe that you're serious, Helen

Do you really think that's what they teach in science classes?

Barbarian observes:
In fact, in all the textbooks and courses I see, the theory is supported by citing evidence.

I'm not. You said that evolution is supported by fiat: I'm pointing out that people teaching it cite evidence, not "it's true because it's in our book". I'd sure like to know where that happens.

Can you tell us about it?

 

I am well aware that the so-called "intelligent design theory" of the Discovery Institute and its fellow travelers seeks to ignore issues of age, and therefore also of process. While there is a certain austere elegance to such an approach,, it cannot be complete without considering processes.

That is absolutely ordinary and mundane. When we see a nugget of gold or copper burried in quartz somewhere we do not infer design. Why? Because we (or some geologists whom we may consult) understand how natural processes could have produced the nugget. If, on the other hand, we had found a nugget of cobalt, then we would have inferred it to have been an artifact, since natural processes do not produce metallic cobalt, while human processes can and do.

Anyway, Helen, the book you are citing talks of design in engineering. It will be about process. If you insist that your own brand of intelligent design theory does not deal with process, then you should not cite the book in support of your variant approach.

 

I tried, but there's something wrong with it. It keeps saying that the thread doesn't exist. I'd be pleased to answer the questions you asked, too, if you'd like.

I guess I'll ask one more time; where are these places where they teach what you claim they do? I'm very skeptical.

I have a friend who is a forensics expert for a large city PD. He often is called on to answer just those questions. "When?" is always a question. "Who?" (or more often, "Who isn't?) is a frequent question.

The difference is that forensics experts actually come up with scientifically defensible results. I have yet to see Dembski's "filter" work, unless the answer was assumed beforehand. Do you know of an example?

ID has only to show a methodology that actually works. The real test, though, is to show that something natural is designed. That's been the hold-up so far.

 

Well, I suggest that it would be an interesting thing to debate just how much of evolution occurred completetly spontaneously and how much happened under God's active control to bring about a race in His image. I've always been a bit suspicious about the "accidental" nature of the killer asteriod 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs . . .

 

Paul of Eugene, if you look at the extinction rate befoer and after the Yucatan asteroid, you'll notice that most dinosauria were already ono their way towards extinction, due mostly to climate and environmental change. The asteroid just gave them a little "extra push". Had the asteroid not hit, they would have probably dies out on their own. The earth has been hit with asteroids countless times. The most recent major hit was in Tunguska (Siberia) in 1908. The geographical damage can still be seen today.