Comments on: Design, Inc.

By: Carolyn Foy-Stromberg

Carolyn Foy-Stromberg — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:12:28 +0000

I am not convinced that God could not have any kind of already figured out plan such as The Big Bang! Why not? Sounds important and just as feasible as anything else that has been “discovered.” Why base every bit of “God evidence” on scripture that has been written, rewritten ad finitum all of which could be changed by many humans in the process.????? CF-S

By: aaron

aaron — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:32:11 +0000

i want to thank ” brandon ‘ and ” laia solen “.

i could not be happier with thier statements and echo thier sentiments . excellent coments.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:26:56 +0000

Dave- Ignoring the fact that you have confused evolution of the seperate species and the beginning of life (the formation of organic polymers leading to self-replicating proteins), I would like to offer up 2 instances of evolution being observed and proved:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2663,Lizards-make-adaptive-change,Stan-Freeman

I would also like to point out that, contrary to your assertion, the Earth is not entropic in nature. I’ll Explain- Here’s the definition of Entropy-

entropy en·tro·py (ěn’trə-pē)
n.
For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a CLOSED SYSTEM.

Simply Put- the Earth is not a CLOSED SYSTEM. The life on this planet, since its inception some 4.5 billion years ago has been powered by an external nuclear reactor pouring more energy into this planet than could ever be needed; namely, the Sun.

As for your conclusions, I’m going to have to disagree. Evolution has been proven time and time and time and time again. It’s been biologically proven, Backed up geologically,Tested genetically, Radio-Carbon verified, Anthropologically confirmed, and Astrolgically slam-dunked.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:40:07 +0000

I have not read the above mentioned book as of yet, so forgive me if my comments are too generalized.

First of all, let me state that I believe Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest” to be brilliant and provable by use of the scientific method. His’ “Origin of the Species” theory however, While interesting, does not afford the proponent the opportunity to scientifically observe the process, being that no observer was present at Life’s supposedly accidental inception. Therefore, anything that follows the afore mentioned theory is merely hypothetical in nature being that it cannot be scientifically proven. That being said, I believe that the same is true for those who take the ID position as well. I find it amusing that while the ID proponents seem to be ridiculed for including some measure of faith in their research, to the truly objective observer the same can be said for anyone actively practicing Evolutionary Biology, as it pertains to our beginnings.

As for as the “watchmaker” argument mentioned above, I think that type of argument is constructive and has it’s place in any philosophical debate as to our origins. It is meant to be thought provoking in nature, and was not designed to once and for all answer the question of where/how life began.

The complexity of bacterial flagellum is an interesting argument for ID, but one could also use the complexity of DNA and it’s components, due to the entropic nature of the earth, and everything on it. Or one could argue that most mutations in biological systems produce weaknesses and new vulnerabilities rather than advantages.

In conclusion, since neither Evolutionary Origins nor ID origins can be scientifically proven, why is it that in most U.S. schools and Universities only the former is taught in science/biology classes? Why not present them both and let people decide for themselves which “Origin Myth” is the most logical?

By: frank

frank — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:28:22 +0000

another discussion of bacterial flagellum attempted to deny its appelation of “machine” to it because it was not simple, regular, or symmetrical IN APPEARANCE.

well, nor is a hand-built wooden clock necessarily – at least when compared to switzerland’s finest – but surely a machine is defined by FUNCTIONAL properties? if so then one is entitled to use simplified, symbolic representations to illustrate the functional interrelations.

what i want to see falsified is the propostiion that a ‘machine’ requires a ‘designer’

By: Laia Solen

Laia Solen — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:24:02 +0000

I am one who has come through a transformation from an “intensley religious” adherent of a conservative Christian religion, with a “close, personal, daily relationship with God”, to someone who applied the perspective and tools of reason and examination gained from my study of science, history, philosophy, and insights into human behavior, to a careful examination of my own and other’s religious beliefs, to find them no longer believable. The fear of someone leaving such beliefs behind is that they are loosing a perspective of life that gave meaning, a sense of comfort, love and joy…a fear that a cold dark world of meaninglessness awaits them. In fact, a close friend put voice to those fears when she was talking to me about my reasons for changing my beliefs, and what it would mean for her if she was ever to follow the same path. What awaits someone who values the scientific process and explanations that fall within the testable natural world as their means to find answers and truth? It is a truly scary prospect to someone contemplating such a change… and it still torments my close religious friends, when they contemplate my change in beliefs. But for me, I was in for a wonderful discovery… the deep joys of life, the sense of awe and wonder, compassion, connectedness, nobility, love and joy, that I thought were part and parcel of my religious beliefs, I was delighted to find are in no way owned by one world-view. For so much of my life and what is so often expected by other people, is that these emotions and their full depth are tied to religiousness. So I fully appreciate the impulse to describe yourself or someone else as “intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief”. Often when someone asks me if I am religious, wanting to be able to express to them my love for life, my awe and wonder at the world, my love and concern for my fellow human beings, my recognition of our connectedness with each other…I often yearn to say, “yes, I am religious”, simply to express all those things…the irony being, that those things are all richly a part of my life, flourishing from my world view that happens to be completely devoid of belief in a God.
I recently had a wonderful experience, that caused me to reflect on just how much emotionally my new world-view has to offer me… I just finished reading “A Primate’s Memoir” by Robert M. Sapolsky. For me it was like reading “Chicken Soup for the Atheist Soul”, though I in no way want to imply that it was sappy. I came to the close of the book, feeling inexpressibly moved. I realized that because of my new perspective, I was able to experience and understand life and the bitter-sweet human experience in new and meaningful ways.

So, to those like my friend, who fearfully would ask what awaits someone who adopts such a world view, I would answer, that if you can survive the traumatic transition and often alienation from family and friends… it is a rich, rich world.

By: Brian Larson

Brian Larson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:42:48 +0000

I have not yet read Ruse’s work, but I shall. What intrigues me most is the quote from p. 335 (second to last paragraph above), that appears to offer a positive “rhetoric” for evolutionist belief. (I use “rhetoric” not in the pejorative sense, but rather in the sense of clothing content in manners of speech that make people WANT to believe it.)

I fear that greatest obstacle to victory for evolutionary thought over “creation-science” and ID is its lack of a positive rhetoric for evolution that makes the listener want to believe it. Too often, folks like Dawkins and others have spoken in ways that make them seem negative or nihilistic. (That’s not the content of their speech, but its rhetorical bent.)

Creation-scientists and IDers, meanwhile, have mastered very clever rhetorical tools, which they use to spread untruths about the physical world.

I hope Ruse’s contribution to the subject points the movement in the right direction.