I'm actually in kind of a quandary about how much I want or need to respond here.
I still don't understand how you miss the overall points about ID as science. Try all you like, the founders of our modern disciplines were creationists. The point is that that didn't inhibit their pursuit of science. Nothing you say will or can change that. They were creationists and got a lot done, thus the argument that science will end if we "let God's foot in the door" is hogwash.
Other than that, I'm kind of done splitting hairs.
Some closing points:
Well the "scientific process as we know it" wasn't born in a vacuum. Your claim that "it wouldn't even exist without a belief in God" is unsupported.
And so is your claim that it would. What my argument has in its favor is that it WAS a belief in God that brought it along to us.
Again, I dispute the Creationist/ID label there. It's true that their professed beliefs would make them Creationists, but they were not actively investigating creation science topics from that perspective.
Actually they were. Almost all of them were performing their work in large part for apologetic purposes. I'll post with details and quotes later.
Can you really type that with the confidence of capital letters? Have you examined the "fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system"? As for Newton, I'll only mention in passing that we've observed plenty that refutes his scientific claims (see: Einstein). His religious claims haven't been refuted because they CAN'T--that's what makes them religious.
Hmm... Which would make neo-Darwinian claims religious, I guess. Also, note that you produce a list of supposed refutations to Behe after stating a hard refutation of him is too high a burden of proof?
I've read quite a bit of Behe's stuff, and I think you may have too?
He's asking for detailed, testable evolutionary paths for his claimed IC systems. No one has produced any yet. So, again... You claim ID as non-science because it is non-testable, nonrefutable, non-observable, and then all but admit that Behe can't really expect neo-Darwinism to produce detailed, testable or observable responses?
And I love that you continue to interject "chance" as if it were the bedrock of evolution, despite explanations to the contrary. You're just parroting standard creationist boilerplate. No, I didn't miss the smiley--it doesn't diminish the fact that you continue to use this straw-man.
Again... I'm in a quandary here. How can I respond any differently than I already have? I've detailed the chance and random involved in neo-Darwinism. It's there! Your hand waving won't change that. Ypur "explanations to the contrary" won't go very far when the other side of your mouth is invoking the chance and random to dismiss other arguments against neo-Darwinian evolution.
Now, I know full well about the proposed work of natural selection and how that is a claimed escape from the abyss of "chance". But (and I'm skirting any appearance of straw here...) what does natural selection have to work with? Chance, random mutation.
Yet, when neo-Darwinism is painted into a corner of probabilities, what is the response? "Well, it was just how it worked out, all chance... Evolution has no direction, plan or end result in mind... It's all about how the random mutations fit into the environment, the selective pressures, population sizes... If it ran all over again, all of that chance input would boil it out to an entire different outcome..."
You can't have it both ways, dogg... Was it chance or planned?
No, not at all. They were simple questions. I was trying to make the point that if you enter into scientific study of the world, you have to be prepared for where it takes you. Some specific religious beliefs you might have will be in danger of being shaken or contradicted.
I'm totally cool with that. I personally think you could have chosen a better way to make the point. As a refresher, I wonder how the following makes any point about where my scientific endeavors lead:
Is it an offense against god to study the natural world and devise useful concepts about it? If we invoke his name in every experiment and add "amen" to every hypothesis, will that make them more useful?
Silly me; I thought it was making the same, tired point about God in science. But now that the point is made, I can honestly respond that I'm OK with that. I can also assure you that as long as you limit where that scientific pursuit can lead, your beliefs will never be shaken.
hmmm...
hmmm...
I'm actually in kind of a quandary about how much I want or need to respond here.
I still don't understand how you miss the overall points about ID as science. Try all you like, the founders of our modern disciplines were creationists. The point is that that didn't inhibit their pursuit of science. Nothing you say will or can change that. They were creationists and got a lot done, thus the argument that science will end if we "let God's foot in the door" is hogwash.
Other than that, I'm kind of done splitting hairs.
Some closing points:
Well the "scientific process as we know it" wasn't born in a vacuum. Your claim that "it wouldn't even exist without a belief in God" is unsupported.
And so is your claim that it would. What my argument has in its favor is that it WAS a belief in God that brought it along to us.
Again, I dispute the Creationist/ID label there. It's true that their professed beliefs would make them Creationists, but they were not actively investigating creation science topics from that perspective.
Actually they were. Almost all of them were performing their work in large part for apologetic purposes. I'll post with details and quotes later.
Can you really type that with the confidence of capital letters? Have you examined the "fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system"? As for Newton, I'll only mention in passing that we've observed plenty that refutes his scientific claims (see: Einstein). His religious claims haven't been refuted because they CAN'T--that's what makes them religious.
Hmm... Which would make neo-Darwinian claims religious, I guess. Also, note that you produce a list of supposed refutations to Behe after stating a hard refutation of him is too high a burden of proof?
I've read quite a bit of Behe's stuff, and I think you may have too?
He's asking for detailed, testable evolutionary paths for his claimed IC systems. No one has produced any yet. So, again... You claim ID as non-science because it is non-testable, nonrefutable, non-observable, and then all but admit that Behe can't really expect neo-Darwinism to produce detailed, testable or observable responses?
And I love that you continue to interject "chance" as if it were the bedrock of evolution, despite explanations to the contrary. You're just parroting standard creationist boilerplate. No, I didn't miss the smiley--it doesn't diminish the fact that you continue to use this straw-man.
Again... I'm in a quandary here. How can I respond any differently than I already have? I've detailed the chance and random involved in neo-Darwinism. It's there! Your hand waving won't change that. Ypur "explanations to the contrary" won't go very far when the other side of your mouth is invoking the chance and random to dismiss other arguments against neo-Darwinian evolution.
Now, I know full well about the proposed work of natural selection and how that is a claimed escape from the abyss of "chance". But (and I'm skirting any appearance of straw here...) what does natural selection have to work with? Chance, random mutation.
Yet, when neo-Darwinism is painted into a corner of probabilities, what is the response? "Well, it was just how it worked out, all chance... Evolution has no direction, plan or end result in mind... It's all about how the random mutations fit into the environment, the selective pressures, population sizes... If it ran all over again, all of that chance input would boil it out to an entire different outcome..."
You can't have it both ways, dogg... Was it chance or planned?
No, not at all. They were simple questions. I was trying to make the point that if you enter into scientific study of the world, you have to be prepared for where it takes you. Some specific religious beliefs you might have will be in danger of being shaken or contradicted.
I'm totally cool with that. I personally think you could have chosen a better way to make the point. As a refresher, I wonder how the following makes any point about where my scientific endeavors lead:
Is it an offense against god to study the natural world and devise useful concepts about it? If we invoke his name in every experiment and add "amen" to every hypothesis, will that make them more useful?
Silly me; I thought it was making the same, tired point about God in science. But now that the point is made, I can honestly respond that I'm OK with that. I can also assure you that as long as you limit where that scientific pursuit can lead, your beliefs will never be shaken.
I think you'll be safe for quite some time.