Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

And yet I think Dr. Miller never quite deals with what prompted that 'something new'. Or what force established the first geome against what seems like most improbably odds

In the trial brief by Judge Jones he stated that he found Dr BEhes testimony "unconvincing "

I instead find myself thinking "why are these people fighting?

rl

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
According to RL humans were "created" along with everything else at about the saem time that the planet was cooling ......I can see everybody dancing around going "OW OW OW ".

RL likes to make these connections.


I do?

Yes you do. In order for your "everything was reated at the same time concept to work, and the earth being less than 10K years old, wed have people out there yelling "Hot Hot Hot"
Im not making things up, Im following your past lines of logic(unless youve changed your opinions)

Real Life: I don't think you read the article I linked in my post. I wish you would, it's a good review of where the science is presently regarding retrovirology. The research, not guesswork by any stretch of the imagination, is moving forward faster than I think anyone out here on the street realizes. Here's the LINK again.

Your guesswork crack is a perfect example of the anti-intellectualism I was referring to, teasing bits of long extinct , repeat, extinct, viruses back into existence is not the stuff of wild-eyed shots in the dark. It is an extremely difficult task, what used to be referred to as a technological feat. Oh, and we do know a lot more about DNA now than we did in the "Junk DNA" days, that's because those days were thirty years ago, an eon in terms of scientific learning. Science and Medicine, for all of your distain, are finding ways to understand life at the molecular level now, a level only dreamed about those same thirty years ago.

And here's the other shoe, RL, while you and your cohorts cling to what you believe are unmoving truths and refuse to see errors as anything but horrible blasphemy, Science, Capital S, never flinchs when finding facts that reverse whole decades of previous thought. The example given in the article regarding RNA and DNA and the processes of one to the other and the reverse is another in the long string of breakthroughs that would never be accepted if Science was following a dogma.

Joe(Good reading. Let us know what you think.)Nation

an incalculable number of ....... viral infections

Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

But with the matter off the agenda of this month's meeting, the creationist group will have to wait until the coordinating board's next meeting, in April, for approval.

but is also viewed as dangerous, given how little most Americans know about science

many Texas lawmakers (not to mention President Bush, a former governor) have argued that discredited theories such as intelligent design should be given equal billing with evolution in science courses.

farmerman wrote:

Well, the normal argument doesnt start with a vacuum cleaner but lets try . Say Bubba is given the pile of parts that dont even make a vacuum cleaner but, by environmental pressures he has assembled a fan.

Then Jake comes by with a totally different bag of stuff (Hes like how mommas and poppas mix their individual genetic material) and he takes the fan and adds some more parts that , say, funnels the fan. Then Jethro comes along with yet another bag, and so on and so on. Once the FAn has been assembled, the manufacture of the vacuum cleaner is merely a matter of time.

Quote:

Genes sort of work like that (without the hillbillies attached) [quote}

Quote:

And yet I think Dr. Miller never quite deals with what prompted that 'something new'. Or what force established the first geome against what seems like most improbably odds

. You can read a copy of Dr Millers deposition and trial testimony and decide for yourself if your "I think" can be answered more completely. In the trial brief by Judge Jones he stated that he found Dr BEhes testimony "unconvincing "

One aspect of this debate that has so far remained inviolate to our attentions is that function of religion which provides people with periodic opportunities to see themselves in a light which downplays their true nature as raggedy-assed, eating and defecating machines which have the capability of replication which can only be kept within bounds with the aid of various industries

Just popped in to ask, who, on the Ark, was carrying the AIDS virus?

One aspect of this debate that has so far remained inviolate to our attentions is that function of religion which provides people with periodic opportunities to see themselves in a light which downplays their true nature as raggedy-assed, eating and defecating machines which have the capability of replication which can only be kept within bounds with the aid of various industries

Assuming most people need this sort of reassurance, something denied by Descartes, La Mettrie, de Sade and many others, to preserve a civilised outlook , what has the anti-ID brigade got to offer to satisfy it?

Those below the radar have to face up to their monkey-like status without amelioration and these are the precise people Jesus suffered for.

It's as stupid as saying football is only 22 men chasing a ball around a field.

Is religion not scientifically designed to satisfy this human need for a spiritual dimension to their lives in the same way that science attempts to satisfy their other less spiritual needs?

What have you socialist, atheist, materialists got to offer to meet these self-evident needs? Nothing is the answer except to disparage the need itself and all the art that goes with it.