subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Create a New Thread]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Intelligent Design theory shows that gays are valued by God |
Baldwin, Mike |
Feb 07, 2006 |
ID theory argues that the existence of certain natural structures is incompatible with the theory of evolution, and that a designer-God is therefore the only possible explanation. By extension, the same must apply to any behaviour that cannot easily be explained by the theory of evolution. Such behaviour must have been designed by God.
Homosexuality is seen by many Christians as 'unnatural' and it is clear that exclusively homosexual behaviour is not a heritable trait, so according to the logic of ID, God must be constantly intervening to create new gay people all the time. Clearly, God must value such behaviour immensely. Maybe Christians who accept ID theory will now become more tolerant to homosexuality and give gay people the respect that I am sure their benevolent designer would wish for them. |
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| How to falsify ID |
Gallien , Joe |
Feb 01, 2006 |
If it is demonstrated that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, biological ID is falsified.
The bottom line is as Dr. Behe states- you can't have it both ways- you can't say that ID is un-falsifiable and then say you have data that would falsify it- as Miller and others have done.
However the best way to falsify ID is to actually substantiate your anti-ID claims- mainly that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes can account for what we observe.
Let me ask this:
How can we falsify the notion that humans "evolved" from non-humans via some blind watchmaker-type process? |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Letter to Science |
Germine, Mark |
Feb 06, 2006 |
A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
The News Focus article -- Judge Jones defines science - and why intelligent design isn't -- (6 Jan. 2006, p. 34) by Jeffrey Merves, echoes the opinion of Judge Jones that intelligent design (ID) is not science, in that it does not have the status of a scientific theory. This opinion seems to be motivated by the anti-evolutionary associations of ID, and not by its inherently unscientific nature, or inherent contradictions between ID and evolution or the theory of natural selection.
The One Mind Model of quantum reality includes a naturalistic, evolutionary theory of ID (1). The basis of the One Mind Model is that: 1) it is the mind that determines what is real by the process of knowing, and 2) that all minds are constrained to the parameters of a single, universal reality (1). I believe that the version of the theory of ID implied by the One Mind Model has the status of a scientific theory, contrary to the theme of the News Focus article. The theory holds that, in a reality determined by knowing, knowing systems called brains evolve naturally (1). Intelligence, as a principle of nature, assumes causal efficacy in progressive evolution through the process of knowing and the actualization of what is known.
Evolution, according to the One Mind Model (1), proceeds inexorably towards higher orders of intelligence, since it is through intelligence that the universe is determined or known, and thus reified or actualized. We, as humans, are all agents in this determination, and, with it, the determination of our own destinies. The One Mind Model places intelligence within nature, as a principle that is progressively manifested in the evolution of organisms. This principle of intelligence in nature is amplified by natural selection, both on the basis of its adaptive functions, and on the basis of the selective reification of knowing systems. This theory of ID is consistent with David Bohm's theory of soma-significance (2), which places meaning or significance at the most elemental level of nature as the basis of a hierarchy in intelligent systems, such as the human central nervous system.
MARK GERMINE
Psychoscience, 317 South Old Stage Road, Mount Shasta, CA 96067, USA.
References
1. M. Germine, Med. Hypotheses 62, 629 (2004).
2. D. Bohm in Mind in Time: The Dynamics of Thought, Reality, and Consciousness. A. Combs, M. Germine, B. Goertzel, Eds. (Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ, 2004). pp. 181-214.
|
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Intelligent Design: Incompatible with belief in God |
Baldwin, Mike |
Feb 01, 2006 |
ID proponents argue that certain biological structures are so irreducibly complex that they could not have evolved through natural selection. They conclude that these structures must therefore have been designed by an unidentified intelligent being. As I will show,
this argument is diametrically opposed to belief in God.
If the ID argument is taken to be scientifically
valid, then by its own logic, any intelligent designer (whatever it may be) must either be so simple that it could have itself evolved through natural selection or else must itself be irreducibly complex. Theists would presumably baulk at the idea that God was simple and evolved naturally. However, if the intelligent designer is irreducibly complex, ID theory maintains that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer (to whom the same arguments about simplicity or complexity would apply). Since theists would claim that God was not designed in such a way, then ID theory is incompatible with belief in God.
For ID theorists to accept that an irreducibly complex God was not designed by an intelligent designer would flatly contradict the whole basis of their initial argument. If irreducible complexity does not imply an intelligent designer, any such complexity found in nature clearly cannot be evidence of such a designer.
If the ID proponents are right in their conclusions then those who believe in God are wrong. Conversely, if there is a God, ID theory is wrong.
Mike Baldwin
Brockworth
Gloucester
UK
|
write a reply
|
|
Previous |
| Next
|
|
