tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post111517250165329768..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Intelligent Design: Not Just a Matter of FaithJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1116990987606863642005-05-24T22:16:00.000-05:002005-05-24T22:16:00.000-05:00I had a great time at Michael F. Whiting's BYU For...I had a great time at Michael F. Whiting's BYU Forum assembly today. You can get the audio of it <A HREF="http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1459&tid=" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>His topic was "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life: Some Assembly Required". The audio of the lecture (linked above) should be good, but the video would be better. He used a lot of visuals that were integral to his presentation. According to <A HREF="http://www.byutv.org/listings/?dateselect=2005%3A6%3A5&v=day&t=21%3A0&tz=-7&UStz=" REL="nofollow">this</A> page, you can watch it on BYU-TV on Sunday, June 5th.<BR/><BR/>I really appreciated hearing about the work Whiting and BYU are doing with genetics to figure out the evolutionary tree of life. He realizes that some people will find the idea of a BYU professor studying evolution offensive and addresses this towards the end of his address. Well worth a listen.Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1115210332472030152005-05-04T07:38:00.000-05:002005-05-04T07:38:00.000-05:00Thanks for the insightful comments! I appreciating...Thanks for the insightful comments! I appreciating all of you dropping by and sharing your knowledge.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1115184829600735222005-05-04T00:33:00.000-05:002005-05-04T00:33:00.000-05:00Be aware that many of the people Behe quoted or re...Be aware that many of the people Behe quoted or reference felt abused by his use of them. I think the criticisms of ID are well made. There is no <I>scientific</I> evidence for their claims. I do think it unfair how many criticize ID for seeking after evidence for their views. However when people postulate ID as anything but a matter of faith then it does become problematic. There's nothing wrong with speculation in science. In a way certain physical theories like superstring theory are speculative and get better treatment than ID. However physicists are much more cautious about such ideas than many are.<BR/><BR/>Further, one ought not that ID still has evolution in terms of history pretty much the same way that normative biologists do. They just don't think it works purely by chance. <BR/><BR/>One ought also point out that ID does <I>not</I> entail God or a creator to be behind the design.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1115181231054096512005-05-03T23:33:00.000-05:002005-05-03T23:33:00.000-05:00Boy he lets a lot of slippery terms do an awful lo...Boy he lets a lot of slippery terms do an awful lot of work in his argument. Lets review his points again.<BR/><BR/>1) We can indeed recognize design in the world around us. But I don't want to say 'nature' for if we say nature the claim is not at all uncontoversial. Here he is trying to set up a sort of all or nothing dichotomy by saying that some things are designed, others are not and we can obviously tell the difference.<BR/><BR/>2) A also object to his use of the word 'design' as if that word were in itself uncontoversial. All evolutionists recongize that their adaptation happens and the best way to understand why certain adaptations help any given organism is to adopt the intentional stance, but this is a far cry from actually being designed. His first two point are "designed" to introduce a designer, and this is where scientists object. There is no evidence in biology for this designer.<BR/><BR/>3) Well of course no scientist has taken an entire planets worth of material and observed it for millions of years to see if life could happen by itself. This is an issue of practicality not falsifiability. The originator of complexity theory, Stuart Kauffman has long since been convinced that his ideas comfortably fit in a darwinian setting. See his book investigation for details. Behe is right for calling this point controversial. He is saying that since we haven't actually done the above experiment, we must posit an inteligent designer. Everybody must see that this is bad science.<BR/><BR/>4) Of course one is justified in thinking it, but calling it science is whole other matter. ID's have yet to present a working hypothesis for thier theories with testable predictions. If something, such as ID, is completely unfalsifiable then it should rightly be rejected by the scientific community. Believe what you want, but don't think for a second that it is anything other than a faith claim which should not be introduced at schools.<BR/><BR/>Those at the discovery institute are very busy seeking to find a desperately needed scientific theory. But stealing the criticisms from various scientists while not recognizing the merit which these same scientists see in the theory is not very respectable.<BR/><BR/>Behe is definitely the best ID author out there. He is a scientist which has written a book trying to reveal a flaw in a reigning theory. This is not bad at all. What is bad is when people will not allow people to respond to the criticism, considering the criticism itself to be the last word. Behe's argument have been received, evaluated and been found wanting.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that there is no God who was not involved in any way in the creation. There is no evidence for this is biology, but this doesn't saying anything about revelations which we personally receive.<BR/><BR/>The most honest treatment I have found on the subject is Michael Ruse's "Can a Darwiniam be a Christian?" He is a strong Darwiniam who sends his kids to a Christian school and gives Christianity its best shot. His answer to the question is "yes." But he rightly considers ID to be unacceptable.Jeff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1115176236723535152005-05-03T22:10:00.000-05:002005-05-03T22:10:00.000-05:00The author makes the point that the concept of int...<I>The author makes the point that the concept of intelligent design has been widely misrepresented and does not depend on religious faith.</I><BR/><BR/>So far, it depends even less on science, IMO.Jared*https://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com