ID goes to sleep

[ollkiller]

Perhaps then you can enlighten me as to HOW this disproves Intelligent Design.

How can you ask that question after reading the article. Really interesting article. Thanks for the link.

[caughtinside]

Is that Billy Bob's brother? Check out the picture...

[mikeinsarasota]

Please try to stay on topic.

[Rick-Parker]

Satan is such a clever beast!

[The Lorax]

I've read the entire article, with exception to the blather about his career, and find nothing to convince me that ID has been somehow disproven. Am I to assume that you believe it has?

No, and the article isn't making that claim. However, this discovery--like every scientific discovery--undermines ID by providing a rational explanation for an unexplained phenomenon. Ya see, the ID movement is nothing more than a habit of declaring "God did it" when there exists no other explanation. As a result, proponents of ID see science (which naturally explains things) as a territorial threat and they reject a great deal of scientific work.

Of course, as a Christian, I believe God created the universe and gave us his Son. He did these magnificent things through direct intervention. But the Lord does not normally intervene in this way. Just look at the history of human knowledge. Humans have a habit of assuming things are acts of God until we realize there is a simpler, more down-to-Earth explanation. There was a time when people thought lightning bolts were evidence of ID--that they were being hurled by a god's hand. Then we learned about electricity and meteorology and we scrapped that explanation. ID is a kind of default assumption, not a positive hypothesis or theory. And as a default assumption, it exists only until something better comes along.

[MorningGlory]

It seems the foundations of ID are being chipped away faster and faster now. Creationists should start devising a new pseudo-scientific theory soon.

Article

I found this man's work fascinating; he seems to be on his way to being a very important scientist. The idea that the receptors could be resurrected from ancient material was especially interesting. While I have great respect for someone as brilliant as this, it still doesn't prove the evolution of man. This is theory, a good one too, but still a theory.

To quote Mr. Thornton:

"If those little changes had never occurred, we might have ended up with a very different biology from the one we have today,"

Sorry, brilliant though he is, we are exactly what the Lord made us; a perfectly planned and executed creation. There is nothing random about any of God's creatures.

You think human beings are perfectly planned and executed??? Tell that to someone who chokes on a piece of food, to someone with back pain.

Yes, jukia, I do. If not for the fall of man, due to sin, we would not have to deal with back pain, choking, or the many other ailments that can befall us; not would we die. Can you truly believe that YOU, unique among the 6.6 billion inhabitants of the earth, are the result of a chance happening a few billion years ago?

[MorningGlory]

I've read the entire article, with exception to the blather about his career, and find nothing to convince me that ID has been somehow disproven. Am I to assume that you believe it has?

No, and the article isn't making that claim. However, this discovery--like every scientific discovery--undermines ID by providing a rational explanation for an unexplained phenomenon. Ya see, the ID movement is nothing more than a habit of declaring "God did it" when there exists no other explanation. As a result, proponents of ID see science (which naturally explains things) as a territorial threat and they reject a great deal of scientific work.

Of course, as a Christian, I believe God created the universe and gave us his Son. He did these magnificent things through direct intervention. But the Lord does not normally intervene in this way. Just look at the history of human knowledge. Humans have a habit of assuming things are acts of God until we realize there is a simpler, more down-to-Earth explanation. There was a time when people thought lightning bolts were evidence of ID--that they were being hurled by a god's hand. Then we learned about electricity and meteorology and we scrapped that explanation. ID is a kind of default assumption, not a positive hypothesis or theory. And as a default assumption, it exists only until something better comes along.

Oh, come now, Lorax. This article does state that Intelligent Design has been refuted.......See this quote:

"Although these authors have not directly addressed this controversy in the discussion of their work

[MorningGlory]

It seems the foundations of ID are being chipped away faster and faster now. Creationists should start devising a new pseudo-scientific theory soon.

Article

It's really important to you that Creationism be debunked, isn't it? Why is that?

[mikeinsarasota]

Where did I say it was important to me that creationism be debunked? What makes you think I'm not a creationist? Perhaps this post was a plea for other creationists to move beyond the pseudoscience that is ID because it is losing traction and it is becoming more and more evident that it just doesn't hold much water. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

It's no secret that ID is a (very very) thinly veiled and poor attempt at getting creationism into science classes. I also believe if this is the best that can be devised we're in trouble.

But let's stay on topic. Why do you say he's wrong. Labeling someone's entire research program as "wrong" is painting with an extremely wide and indiscriminate brush. It's kind of like saying a nonChristians life is "wrong." Maybe the way that person treated Jesus is wrong, but to say his whole life is wrong is just kind of inappropriate, linguistically.

What is he wrong about? Did he falsify data? If he's as good a scientist as the Bush administration deems him to be, he might like to hear what he did wrong, you should contact him since you know all about this stuff. Maybe you could get your name on his next paper.

Edited March 14, 2008 by mikeinsarasota

[MorningGlory]

Where did I say it was important to me that creationism be debunked? What makes you think I'm not a creationist? Perhaps this post was a plea for other creationists to move beyond the pseudoscience that is ID because it is losing traction and it is becoming more and more evident that it just doesn't hold much water. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

It's no secret that ID is a (very very) thinly veiled and poor attempt at getting creationism into science classes. I also believe if this is the best that can be devised we're in trouble.

But let's stay on topic. Why do you say he's wrong. Labeling someone's entire research program as "wrong" is painting with an extremely wide and indiscriminate brush. It's kind of like saying a nonChristians life is "wrong." Maybe the way that person treated Jesus is wrong, but to say his whole life is wrong is just kind of inappropriate, linguistically.

What is he wrong about? Did he falsify data? If he's as good a scientist as the Bush administration deems him to be, he might like to hear what he did wrong, you should contact him since you know all about this stuff. Maybe you could get your name on his next paper.

You did not SAY that it was important. However, everything you post is in support of the TOE. I say Mr. Thornton is wrong, not because his research is faulty or that he isn't a brilliant scientist, but because his idea of how things came about is simply that...his idea. Your sarcasm is irrelevant, my friend, but I notice you fall on back on that a lot. Why not try discussion instead of anger every time someone disagrees with you? I know what the Bible tells me and I have great respect for science. The words that are coming from you are your own; please don't try to blame them on me.