Fr. Morris On Intelligent Design

[micro 0]

This piece was written by a friend of mine, a former classmate from college who is now a Catholic priest, writing for Fox.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184953,00.html

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[JohnnyD 0]

A priest endorsing ID. Shocker.
Not a bad article all in all, but to say that evolution is completely random and not science - maybe he should brush up a bit.
FWIW - I am an athiest, but I do believe creationism and other religious theories should be taught in school - in a religion class. I think it is an important part of a well rounded education to try to see the view point of lunatics who have been killing each other for centuries in the name of their gods (which encompasses pretty much all races and religions).

[quade 4]

I think he's right and I think he's wrong.

He's right when he says the concept of Intelligent Design should go down the hall (his phrase) to the Philosophy class.

He's wrong when he says; "They are being taught a very unscientific theory called Neo-Darwinism, the belief that there is NO purpose or intelligence behind life forms, that it’s all random."

He believes that science addresses the issue of "purpose".
It does not.
Science gives the best model of reality it can with the information currently available. In other words, there is a huge preponderance of evidence that suggest the basic theory of evolution is correct. It does NOT try to assign a "purpose" to it, it simply says it exists.

If tomorrow, God actually (not just metaphorically) spoke to us or was somehow proven to exist, -science- would change in an instant.

So far, he hasn't in any provable or repeatable way -- ever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

If tomorrow, God actually (not just metaphorically) spoke to us or was somehow proven to exist, -science- would change in an instant.

You know, somehow I believe that. Basically because lots of people would fall over with heart attacks and die. Can you imagine the "I AM" stating that out of the sky or whatever, voice booming from the netherscape, saying "HI. I GOT YOUR ATTENTION YET??" How freaky that would be for some people. Complete chaos for a while.

And actually, iirc, that is predicted in the Bible to actually occur as one of the "end time" signs, I think.

But back to the topic...I probably should read the article before I comment.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kelpdiver 2]

Neo-darwinism.

So exactly when did neo transform into a prefix that means "fucked up variant of"

can anything think of a neo-something that isn't a negative? Neofacist, Neo-Con, ...

[SpeedRacer 1]

ummmm.... Neon?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Actually there is no negative connotation in Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism is just Darwinism which involves modern day findings of the nature of genetic mutations. If anything it recapitulates Darwinism.

In Darwin's time they understood something about genetic inheritance (ie, Mendel) but they didn't know diddly squat about DNA.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Stumpy 284]

I agree - i think he needs to understand evolution and natural selection a little better before he refers to it as totally random and without purpose.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[JackC 0]

I agree with him about the lack of empirical evidence for ID and that it belongs out of science but he then goes on to make the same mistakes about what science is as most other ID proponent. Merely repeating that "natural selection is random" will not make it true but it does reinforce the perception among some people that it is true. Especially when that statement comes from someone in a position of percieved "authority".

The ID crowd may know this and use it to their advange or it may just be a self re-inforcing mechanism that has taken on it's own momentum. Either way, ID will never actualy be science nor will it ever gain any respectability in the mainstream scientific community. But as long as someone is gullible enough to believe that it could be, the debate will rage on.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

voice booming from the netherscape, saying "HI. I GOT YOUR ATTENTION YET??" How freaky that would be for some people.

I don't think so. 3 groups of people

1 - those that would smugly say "I told you all so. See? I am better than all the rest of you"
2 - those that would say "Hmm, how about that. I better rethink my position
3 - those (that you think would fall over in shock) might just pretend they didn't hear anything

Then the voice would say, "WHY BOTHER, WHAT A WASTE OF MY TIME. I'M GOING FOR A SAMMICH"

you just know he has the absolutely BEST sammiches

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Actually there is no negative connotation in Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism is just Darwinism which involves modern day findings of the nature of genetic mutations. If anything it recapitulates Darwinism.

In Darwin's time they understood something about genetic inheritance (ie, Mendel) but they didn't know diddly squat about DNA.

"Origin of Species" First published on November 24, 1859, Mendel's first report on genetic inheritance 1865.

O of S was based solely on careful observation of the morphology of living and fossil lifeforms. Genetics and molecular biology later provided the biological and biochemical mechanisms in support of the hypothesis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually there is no negative connotation in Neo-Darwinism

there is to the guy who wrote the article.