onasis
2004-03-09, 03:46
Note to Mod: This deals with both science and theology, I put this topic in this forum because I thought it best fit here. Please move it if you think it should be in Mad Scientists or somewhere else.
Recently, a professor at a local university came to my school to speak on his counter theory against evolution. It was called the "Intelligent Design". Right away, it can be said that this theory was obviously religiously backed in some way or form.
The professor talked about Darwin's "Black Box" and how muliple systems would have to arise almost simultaneously for them to work--attributed to some intelligent design. He used the analogy of a mouse trap to illustrate his point(can be seen here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html). The entire lecture he used inanimate objects as his testaments against evolution and discussed how and why they emerged.
He didn't really believe that things happened
over periods of millions of years and the basics of natural selection. He claimed not to be theist but from what he said it could clearly be seen that his theory was merely another form of creationism.
Like most evolution skeptics, his main arguement stemmed from how(?) things evoloved and changed. How did the first single cell organisms become self aware? How did they learn to eat food? etc...He never had real scientific base for his findings, just diagrams of a bacteria's flaggelum and why he believed that that type of "motorized" tail could not have been evoloved and how and why the eyes devleoped their ways of seeing distances and such.
The theory just pointed towards God as an answer, it lacked real scientific knowledge and work. It fails to recognize the antropolgical data that has been found all across the world pointing towards evolution.
The CRSC Webpage(where the theory of Intelligent Design is found) (http://crsc.org/)
Here is the so called "evidence" for Intelligent Design
quote:During recent decades, evidence from many scientific disciplines has suggested the bankruptcy of strictly materialistic thinking in science and the need for new explanations and perspectives. Consider:
In cosmology, evidence suggests the universe--including all matter, space, time, and energy--came suddenly into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos.
In physics, evidence has shown that the universe is "finely-tuned" for the existence of life, suggesting the work, as Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle puts it, "of a superintellect."
In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly, and has sparked new interest in the design hypothesis
...
Taken from "Evidence for Design" from the CRSC page (http://crsc.org/TopQuestions/evidenceForDesign.html)
I believe that this is just another creationist theory that points out some holes in evolution. It doesn't have scientific backing and merges with religion to form its theory. I don't believe that this is legitimate from either the theological or the scientific perspective.
edit 1: added some extra
edit 2: spelled Argument wrong...
[This message has been edited by onasis (edited 03-09-2004).]
[This message has been edited by onasis (edited 03-09-2004).]
Recently, a professor at a local university came to my school to speak on his counter theory against evolution. It was called the "Intelligent Design". Right away, it can be said that this theory was obviously religiously backed in some way or form.
The professor talked about Darwin's "Black Box" and how muliple systems would have to arise almost simultaneously for them to work--attributed to some intelligent design. He used the analogy of a mouse trap to illustrate his point(can be seen here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html). The entire lecture he used inanimate objects as his testaments against evolution and discussed how and why they emerged.
He didn't really believe that things happened
over periods of millions of years and the basics of natural selection. He claimed not to be theist but from what he said it could clearly be seen that his theory was merely another form of creationism.
Like most evolution skeptics, his main arguement stemmed from how(?) things evoloved and changed. How did the first single cell organisms become self aware? How did they learn to eat food? etc...He never had real scientific base for his findings, just diagrams of a bacteria's flaggelum and why he believed that that type of "motorized" tail could not have been evoloved and how and why the eyes devleoped their ways of seeing distances and such.
The theory just pointed towards God as an answer, it lacked real scientific knowledge and work. It fails to recognize the antropolgical data that has been found all across the world pointing towards evolution.
The CRSC Webpage(where the theory of Intelligent Design is found) (http://crsc.org/)
Here is the so called "evidence" for Intelligent Design
quote:During recent decades, evidence from many scientific disciplines has suggested the bankruptcy of strictly materialistic thinking in science and the need for new explanations and perspectives. Consider:
In cosmology, evidence suggests the universe--including all matter, space, time, and energy--came suddenly into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos.
In physics, evidence has shown that the universe is "finely-tuned" for the existence of life, suggesting the work, as Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle puts it, "of a superintellect."
In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly, and has sparked new interest in the design hypothesis
...
Taken from "Evidence for Design" from the CRSC page (http://crsc.org/TopQuestions/evidenceForDesign.html)
I believe that this is just another creationist theory that points out some holes in evolution. It doesn't have scientific backing and merges with religion to form its theory. I don't believe that this is legitimate from either the theological or the scientific perspective.
edit 1: added some extra
edit 2: spelled Argument wrong...
[This message has been edited by onasis (edited 03-09-2004).]
[This message has been edited by onasis (edited 03-09-2004).]