"The Wedge" or a wedgie for evolutionist? On a resent thread (The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize) the question was asked: Why would The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. want "to keep the project as quiet as possible within the scientific community"? Abaddon said: I think you might not be aware of the ID-ism's founding principle, "The Wedge". This stratagy might seem a commendable defence of belief, but it is worrying. For a start, it is a stratagy to discredit or dispose a paradigm when it has no equivalently rigourous paradigm to replace it. It's not like they can say "Evolution is wrong, we can prove it like THIS". They try, but far not one argument advanced by the Creationist and ID community has gained even minor acceptence. They have produced some brilliant science - the refutations of Behe's irreducable complexity being prime examples of some beautiful science. Apparently, at least one leading scientist (who led the team that cracked the human genome) disagrees. Francis Collins (the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute) who was an atheist until the age of 27, believes there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”. About unraveling the human genome, Collins said it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”. He now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles do happen. In his book, The Language of God, to be released in September, he states that the human genome "could only have been created by an intelligent and powerful being". He now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles do happen. “When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along". “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
"The Wedge" or a wedgie for evolutionist?
by Deputy Dog 8 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
under_believer
See also: Appeal to authority.
-
gaiagirl
Surely he is not suggesting that the human genome existed 3.1 billion years ago?
-
Kudra
OK... so some guy (albeit some famous smart guy) has a "feeling".
This means WHAT to me and my holding of evolution as a scientific theory up there with, oh, gravity, relativity and a few others...? -
Kudra
And by the way, a "wedgie" is an annoying prank played by an immature jokester...
Quite a fitting metaphor... -
kid-A
"He now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles do happen"
Who cares? If he told me there were little green goblins running around his backyard I would'nt take that too seriously either. Collins can think or say whatever he wants, he is basing these assertions on "feelings" not on any evidence or research. The human genome is a remarkable (although higly flawed) piece of molecular machinery. There is absolutely no basis for inserting some fictional deity into the equation.
-
daystar
Complexity does not require a designer. A very high degree of complexity can result from the simplest equations over many iterations.
-
ellderwho
Apparently, at least one leading scientist (who led the team that cracked the human genome) disagrees.
Dog,Dog,Dog....dont you realize that no "creationist" will ever be smart enough to be an evolutionist. I mean, its what we have been taught here. So stop questioning it, and creating dissent.
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Dog,Dog,Dog....dont you realize that no "creationist" will ever be smart enough to be an evolutionist. I mean, its what we have been taught here. So stop questioning it, and creating dissent.
As far as I've seen, its all about being able to question here. And assessing which position has more or less merit, is a natural part of that. When it comes to this issue, evolution has alot of support from several independent lines of evidence, and special creation has none. I wouldn't call creationists less intelligent. I won't stereotype because I've seen some rather stupid atheists who go along with the idea of evolution, because to them, it validates their apish lifestyle. I do think that many creationists are minimizing or discounting evolution based on something other than objective consideration of the evidence.
Take me for instance. I'm wholely convinced that all life has evolved here from previous life. But the complexity of even the simplest bacteria leaves me unsatisfied with the current proposals of abiogenesis, and I'll admit that I like the idea of panspermia. But am I enticed by that idea because I simply can't conceptualize a path by which life arose from abiotic matter here? What does moving the process to another unknown and hypothetical spot accomplish? Isn't it then just a variant of the creationists' god-of-the-gaps? No-one has called me a moron here on this discussion board for throwing around the idea of panspermia. Although someone did insinuate I was prime fodder for the scientologists.
