Hi Cantleave,
I really hope you don't teach science Randy!
I'm not a teacher. I work as a software engineer -- but please do expand on this.
Cheers,
-Randy
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy 261 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Satanus
Hey, rawe, are you suggesting that the first life form was created by god?
S
-
rawe
Hi S, et al,
Part of the reason I left the last one a question mark, was I had to hurry off to work. My point is intelligent design is a real and applies to many things. When a gopher digs a hole he (or she) is using his brain -- thus it can be said the hole is an example of ID. As is the arrow head, as is the Mona Lisa. We generally know the output of an intellect when we see it.
But the vast majority of scientists, especially biologists, reject the notion postulated by Behe, that the first example of life on the planet was the result of ID.
It is also generally understood and accepted that all examples of life now are definately not the result of ID in the present tense. Although a man or woman may use their intellect in the mate selection process, they have no real control over the purely natural processes that result in a new example of a human. Thus, comparing ID systems (such as a camera) to natural systems (such as an eye) is fundementally flawed.
If we accept that life now results from natural causes and not ID, why would we feel compelled to suggest the first example of life was ID?
For the sake of argument, lets say that is the case, life originates from ID. Even if that is the case, then when did it make the transition to natural forces? To Behe he stops at the first cell, then lets evolution take over. As Witnesses we were taught every species had to be specially created, based on the assumption that reproduction, selective pressures and mutations could never result in new species. That is really an odd view of ID -- considering the "intelligence" keeps creating species that ultimately go extinct, some where north of 90% of the time!
Cheers,
-Randy
-
rawe
Hi S,
Hey, rawe, are you suggesting that the first life form was created by god?
No. Actually I believe that if God exists, is able to act without detection, and does so in violation of the laws of nature, then we cannot know anything about our world, even in principal.
We have lots of evidence for ID of many things, computers, cameras, cars, ant hills. We have lots of evidence for evolution, fossil record, DNA, actual experiments such as Richard Lenksi's work with E. coli. However, we are short on examples for the origin of life. But...
We do have, thanks to Miller, et al, have experiments on the origin of amino acids. And we have the testimony of experts like James Watson that life is basically chemistry and does not support the notion of "vitalism" (i.e. something mysterious and God-like about it). So my understanding is the origin of life is unknown, other than we do know it happened in the past. However, when it comes to "this is like that", I definately feel "origin of life is like other productions by natural forces that can (over the short term) build up complexity."
Cheers,
-Randy
-
cofty
To Behe he stops at the first cell, then lets evolution take over.
No he doesn't.
He resorts to magical answers again and again. That is the whole point of irreducible complexity. According to him all sorts of things are too complex to evolve without the ongoing tinkering of god an intelligent designer (mustn't say god or they won't let us teach it to kids)
e.g. the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum.
-
Satanus
Thanks. Its what i thought. I guess cofty misunderstood.
S
-
rawe
Hi Cofty,
No he doesn't. He resorts to magical answers again and again.
It has been a long while since I read Behe, but help me out on my misunderstanding. My recall from his Black Box book was ID was required because of IC. That the intelligent designer placed within the first life form the potential for different systems. And in fact, this is was the primary flaw pointed out by Kenneth Miller. That evolution would not preserve, in working order, future-only functional sequences. This is a big problem, because where DNA does not code for functional genes we see the largest degree of mutation.
Nonetheless, I recall Behe saying he accepted macro evolution and a common ancestor between say Apes and Humans.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
snare&racket
Maybe this will help you untie some JW misconceptions that you still have tied in your noodle.....
good page btw, well done if it is anyone here...
-
Julia Orwell
Great thread! Good to get so many different avenues of information from so many perspectives. This is what true learning is in my opinion.
-
Phizzy
Julia, if you read for long enough on here, it is the equivalent of a College Degree.
(Where have I heard that before ?)