Comments on: Specified Complexity–Neither of Chance Nor of Necessity

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:43:00 +0000

Laurie, I thought that Christians opposed to Evolution were all members of the flat-earth society and persecuted Galileo for daring to challenge the authority of the Word of God!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:33:00 +0000

Exactly. Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe, with all of its epicycles and deferents, did a great job of predicting the positions of the planets at any particular moment. But for all its practical use, it wasn't a true picture of what the solar system looked like. Until its limits were exposed, and a heliocentric view of the universe was accepted, the true cause of the motion of the planets (gravity induced by the mass of the Sun) could not be discovered.
Just because evolution describes a lot of things well does not mean it is truth, and as you say, until its limits are exposed, society will never get any deeper to the true origins of life on Earth.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:45:00 +0000

Good point, Bill. I thought that was odd too. I think he feels like he has to make sure people don't think he believes it even though he's explaining it clearly and not disrepectfully.
This is encouraging because it means the conversation has moved to the point where people are beginning to hear the actual arguments even if they're still fairly suspicious.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:08:00 +0000

I wanted to add about Orr's article, that his tone is very measured throughout the article, then he suddenly calls ID junk science when the discussion he's had before it doesn't lead to that conclusion It might lead to the conclusion that ID isn't contributing to science, but not that it is junk science.
It's as iff Orr thinks his explanation leads to the belief of himself and his peers, but they don't follow.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:24:00 +0000

Granted. His illustration pushes back the design issue.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:23:00 +0000

No. I've never entered into conversation with anyone about it. I've never studied or really known the content of ID stuff. I was just hearing these folks gestalt opinions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:38:00 +0000

Did they ever mention anything specific?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:10:00 +0000

“I think you are asking too much of the car metaphor, Tim. It's an illustration rather than an argument. If you refer back to his celular examples, you'll see that he is not refering to something designed, nor would the changes have to be designed for his point to carry.”
Bill, the point I am making is that for Orr's point to carry, the changes would have to be in something which was not the result of design. Otherwise, the question of design is merely pushed back one step: can non-essential parts become essential parts without modification by an intelligent agent? Orr's illustration, which he uses to support his argument, imports intelligent agency into the scenario, thus utilizing the very thing he wishes to say does not occur.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:32:00 +0000

Amy I do have some interest, but I don't think enough to go and buy and/or read something. I am interested for my own curiosity. We'll see. I think the premise they are trying to establish is correct. I believe evolution, though it has a great deal of support in describing a great deal of the world around us, does not provide the ultimate answers to the beginning of life. I think that the material-naturalistic theology that developed in the scientific world and is often taught entwined in evolutionary theory is irrationally limited, and I believe it is in societies best interests for those limits to be exposed.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:24:00 +0000

I think you are asking too much of the car metaphor, Tim. It's an illustration rather than an argument. If you refer back to his celular examples, you'll see that he is not refering to something designed, nor would the changes have to be designed for his point to carry.
I am intrigued by the arguments. ID does seem to be to be polemic and apologetic at its core rather than a branch of science. As Orr points out, the theory of evolution has led to vast numbers of experiments and discoveries. We have yet to see what experiments and discoveries would come from the ID theories. ID seems to be dealing primarily with the pre-celular life, which we have no way of observing or experimenting with. While I agree that there is a creator, and affirm the basic thrust of intelligent design, it seems less useful in terms of helping us futher discover and explain the universe through observation and experimentation than the theory of evolution. As Orr suggests, the theory of evolution has been a more fruitful tool for studying life from the first cell forward.
I find it very difficult to believe that an eye could have evolved. On the other hand, while not being able to explain the first eye, the evidence of creatures adapting to their surroundings by growing over their eyes is a striking example of how significant evolutionary forces have been since that first eye.
I think it takes remarkable faith to believe that the first cell evolved from previous organisms. To suggest that all life came from a first cell or set of cells does not seem nearly as improbable as saying that the first cell developed from anything less than a cell.