The Best Schools interviewed leading Intelligent Design theorist, Bill Dembski. At one point he was asked, “You have stated that ‘design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.’ But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?”
This is a valid question, and I’m sure it is on the minds of many people who are interested in the debate. I like Dembski’s answer:
As for why religious believers tend to be associated with design, I could turn the question around. If Darwinian evolution is strictly scientific, then why is that field so heavily populated with atheists? In one survey of around 150 prominent evolutionary biologists, only two were religious believers (as I recall, Will Provine was behind this survey). I see a scientific core to both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. And I see no merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep. The character of the proposals that both approaches make is what really ought to count.
HT: Uncommon Descent
Thinking to Believe 
January 30, 2012 at 10:03 pm
The scientists use empiricism and methodological naturalism and most are naturalists as a result-what Dawkins notes about being a fulfilled atheist. The supernaturalists respond to arguments from ignorance and for personal explanation per Billy Lane Craig and Richie Swinburne-the pseudo-explanation! Google the ignostic-Ockham to find out why the supernatural has no basis.
I recommend this blog at mine!
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 10:52 am
[…] If Intelligent Design is Science, Why Do So Many Scientists and Scientific Institutions Denounce It? The Best Schools interviewed leading Intelligent Design theorist, Bill Dembski. At one point he was asked, “You have stated that ‘design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.’ But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?” […]
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“If Intelligent Design is Science”
Because it’s not science. Simple as that.
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm
thanks for posting 😉
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Griggs and NotAScientist, has dialogue for your side come down to this? You are full on assertions and empty on arguments. Where is your evidence? Provide me with some arguments so I have something to critique.
@Griggs = To portray theistic arguments as arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity reveals that you either do not understand what an argument from ignorance means, or you do not understand theistic arguments, or you are intentionally misrepresenting theistic arguments. It’s one thing to say that theistic arguments fail for this reason or that, but it’s a wholly other thing to characterize them as you do. Arguments from ignorance follow the form of “X cannot explain Y, therefore Z does.” Clearly showing that X is false does not entail that Z is true. One must give reasons to think that Z is true independent of the reasons to think X is false (unless one is dealing with a true dichotomy in which case evidence against X is evidence for Z). The classical theistic arguments for God’s existence offer positive reasons to think God exists, not just negative critiques of other explanations that they count as evidence for God’s existence.
Furthermore, I disagree with you that scientists become naturalists because they deal with empirical methods of investigation and employ methodological naturalism in their discipline. Several things need to be said. First, clearly all scientists–if they are doing science–must use empirical methods for discovery. I do not dispute this. But it is not the case that methodological naturalism is necessary to the work of science. That may be the preferred philosophy of science today, but it was not the philosophy of science that was employed by the first practitioners of science and they did science just fine. Indeed, they were some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived, and modern scientists are indebted to their work.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is not the case that methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism per se. Clearly it can, and we can point to individuals for which it has. But it need not do so, and this is clear from the fact that there are many scientists who are theists who abide by methodological naturalism in their discipline, and yet reject philosophical naturalism. Indeed, I would argue that anyone who becomes a philosophical naturalist because of their use of methodological naturalism in their scientific pursuits is a person who is confusing categories because there is no relationship between the two other than the word “naturalism.” Methodological naturalism does not entail philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a practical restraint on how one goes about developing explanations for natural phenomenon. It is an epistemological commitment. Whether or not one employes methodological naturalism is based on matters of practicality, not on matters of truth. Indeed, it doesn’t even make sense to speak of methodological naturalism as being true or false. It is judged by its utility, not by its truth value. It’s a method for doing science, that’s all.
In contrast, philosophical naturalism is an ontological point of view that speaks to what is real and what is not; what is true and what is not. So even if one could list 100 advantages of employing methdological naturalism as the guiding principle for doing science, none of that argues for the truth of philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism, if true, requires independent arguments. Someone who comes to embrace philosophical naturalism because of their experience using methodological naturalism as a method for investigating and explaining physical reality has confused ontology with epistemology/practicality. Just because methdological naturalism may be useful as a method for explaining the physical world does not mean that physical reality is all that exists. That does not follow logically. And thinking it does is like thinking that because a zone defense is useful for winning basketball games that basketball is the only sport that exists.
Jason
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 8:16 am
Nice epistemology argument Jason, but you missed the point. I believe the question was why scientists don’t accept intelligent design as science. The intelligent designees are fond of the atheism argument – the poor, misunderstood theistic intelligent design scientist can’t get his work accepted by the big bad atheists in the scientific establishment. Sophistry. Dembski is right, one’s theology shouldn’t matter. Dembski is wrong too, and NotAScientist is right, ID isn’t science. It presents no testable, falsifiable hypotheses, doesn’t conduct any experimental work for corroboration and doesn’t present any evidence for peer review. It violates the scientific method by relying on the God hypothesis to fill in the blanks. Yeah, I know, we’ve heard this arguement too – “God? Who said anything about God? I said designer, not God.” Not just sophistry, but pure bull. Anyone who has done any reading on Kitzmiller v. Dover knows full well the fraud Davis, Keynyon and Thaxton tried to perpetrate when they rewrote Of Pandas and People after the Supreme Court ruling in Aguillar v. Edwards. Changing “Creator” to “designer”, “creation science” to “intelligent design” and deleting references to the Book of Genesis didn’t change the theistic underpinnings of ID. It’s still “Designer”, with a capital D. If the intelligent designees want to be accepted by science, they should try doing science. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. The God hypothesis is too good of a crutch to substitute for the hard work involved in doing science. The IDees would rather write books for the scientifically under-educated general public claiming how stupid scientists are for not accepting the inerrant word of God as a viable method for scientific inquiry and then whine to state legislators and boards of education about how the deserve to be treated as equals in the science classroom. They get no sympathy from me.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 11:45 am
Bob,
You are mistaken about ID publishing in peer-reviewed sources. There are 50 ID articles published in peer-reviewed sources now (http://www.discovery.org/a/2640). But this is a red-herring because being or not being published does not mean something is true or false. Furthermore, circular reasoning is employed. Critics say ID is not science because it is not peer-reviewed, and yet they won’t publish ID papers because they say it is not science. It’s a catch-22 in which the competition gets to make the rules and declare the winner by fiat.
You fail to distinguish ID theory proper from ID theorists’ personal views about the identity of the designing intelligence. Detecting design is a scientific enterprise. Identifying the designer is not necessarily so. That is where philosophy and theology may be brought into bear on the question. But it is a separate question from the scientific one, namely, are there features in the natural world that are best explained in terms of intelligence rather than purely unguided natural processes?
As for research programs, consider Robert Mark’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the work of Doug Axe. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html for more info on how ID is a scientific endeavor.
ID is not testable or falsifiable (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html)? Then why are evolutionists always claim that it has been tested and falsified by the evidence? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Only if ID made no empirical claims could it be untestable and non-falsifiable. One way of falsifying ID claims is by showing that naturalistic causes are actually capable of producing features such as irreducible complexity. If that could be shown, the the inference to design from IC would be undermined.
It’s actually Darwinism that is unfalsifiable. Whatever the evidence, it can be made to fit into Darwin’s paradigm. E.g. if we see change in the organisms in the fossil record, it is proof of Darwinism. If we see stasis in the fossil record, it is proof of Darwinism. Nothing can count against theory. Or what about abiogenesis? All attempts to understand how it could have occurred only make it seem more improbable, and yet no one ever concludes that it did not occur via unguided natural processes. And if 50 more theories about the OOL prove false, they will still maintain the theory. Abiogensis cannot be falsified, and there is no evidence for it, but naturalists continue to believe it because they must. Contrast this with ID. As Behe noted: “To falsify the first claim [that an intelligent designer is responsible for IC systems], one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim [that unguided naturalistic processes created it], one would have to show the system could not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which is effectively impossible to do.”
Let me say more about testability. ID is testable. It can be done in the same way Darwin did it: by comparing its explanatory power with competing hypotheses. We can test ID against our knowledge of causal adequacy.
Testable predictions? ID does make some (such as the prediction that “junk DNA” would be found to contain function), but keep in mind the difference between experimental and historical sciences. ID is a historical science. Historical sciences (including paleontology) are not geared toward making predictions about the future, but in explaining the past. In the same way we would not fault paleontology for not making many predictions about future findings, we should not expect ID theory to make a lot of predictions about the future. But there are some that can be made. Indeed, Stephen Meyer provided a long list of them in Signature in the Cell.
Jason
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Bravo! Jason, to your comments on post 5, (I haven’t had time to read the rest yet). I could not have said it any better. I think you will eventually either scare them away or incur their wrath with your kind of logical thinking. There is the slim possibility that they are actually sincere and will inquire further respectfully.
Yours is the kind of theistic thinking that is so sadly lacking in schools and in media where most of the public gets their education. If we could only get pastors to include biblical logic, apologetics and hermeneutics in their Bible classes throughout the week. Perhaps more of our fellow believers would be better equipped to handle such anti-Christian evangelism. Thanks God for your blog.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Bob Mason,
The words you choose and your tone seem to insist that “all real scientists” know that ID is nonsense. Well, that just is not true. There are many excellent scientists, with all the credentials, who believe that Intelligent Design is not only science, but good science. I will grant you they are in the minority, but that does not mean they do not exist. Hundreds, probably thousands, exist.
You charged that IDers would rather write books for the “scientifically undereducated” that claim scientists are stupid. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the work of Michael Behe. He never uses that sort of language.
Not all Christians are dumb, Bob. Surely you can tell that Jason and others who comment on this site are quite intelligent and educated.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Bravo again Jason, I finally had a chance to read the rest of your posts, particularly your response to Bob (#7), and I really think you nailed him. I will be very interested to see how he responds to you because I have so often seen such evolutionist science professionals go “ape” (pun intended) whenever they are confronted with intelligent argumentation.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Bob, if I may piggy back on what Jason has already said, I would like to point out a few things.
First I see no reason for foul language and rudeness since none has been directed towards you.
Perhaps you can find the courage to be courteous while engaging us here.
To your comment :“Anyone who has done any reading on Kitzmiller v. Dover knows full well…”
Have you read anything on that trial other than what Judge Jones, the ACLU and other atheist have said? I understand how adverse your group is to allowing the opposition to speak for themselves and how quick you are to polarize their weakest arguments and flops while avoiding or completely misrepresenting their best arguments against you but I to try anyway.
The Discovery Institute has extensively reported on just about every angle of that trial and case on their web site but you and your group persistently tout Kitzmiller v. Dover as if it was an honest victory for your side complete with character, benevolence and judicial integrity, none of which it was.
“A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law By: David DeWolf & John West”
http://www.discovery.org/a/3829
“Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision”
By: DeWolf, David K., West, John G., Luskin, Casey and Witt, Jonathan
http://www.discovery.org/a/3688
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4002557.html
As for your rant, this is no place for it. If you are not interested in intelligent dialogue perhaps you can exit and save face.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Bob,
Randy reminded me that I did not address your comments about IDers writing books to the scientifically uneducated. This is a strange charge. For every ID book directed at the non-scientific I could point to 10 books selling Darwinism to the non-scientific. Both groups are wearing the same shoe, and rightly so. Why shouldn’t they be writing for the non-scientists who are trying to understand these issues? If your concern is that they are not writing for the scientific academics, that’s not particularly true. Granted, most of the works are aimed at a popular level, but this is largely because most journals refuse to publish anything related to ID (apart from the 50 that I mentioned before). And some of the books, such as Dembski’s “The Design Inference” published by Cambridge University Press are essentially monographs turned into books. Also, Behe speaks to both the scientifically uneducated and the scientifically educated in his books, providing exquisite details for those who are in the know. And remember, the leaders of ID movement are not theologians and pastors. They are scientists with degrees in the sciences, doing work in the sciences.
Jason
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 7:42 am
Sorry I haven’t responded sooner guys; been busy sending letters to Indiana State Representatives regarding Senate Bill 89. I apologize for the tone of my first post. I agree it was harsh and I regretted it right after I hit the enter key. You are correct that theology and philosophy have a right to look to design as an explanation of life. However, last I read the strategy outlined in the Wedge Document hadn’t yet been implemented worldwide. Which means, I think, from a purely scientific viewpoint that hypotheses based on capital D are still not allowed in science and, by definition, are not testable or falsifiable. My standards for scientific inquiry appear to be different from yours:
Testable: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/id_checklist
Falsifiable: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
Peer Review: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/intelligent-design-examined-peer-review/
Have fun writing long-winded discourses for each other. I’m going to work on my golf swing for a while, then bang my head against the wall before I try and finish Darwin’s Black Box. Taking me forever to read that. Why is it that atheist Dawkins and Catholic Miller are so much more enjoyable to read? Veracity and logic of their arguments maybe? Let me finish Behe so I can read the Michael Ruse book the library has waiting for me and then the book on hominid evolution in east Africa that I have on order. Maybe then I’ll be ready to beat my head against the wall again. Phillip Johnson, maybe? Genesis chapters 1 and 2 didn’t work for me as an explanation of why I am here on planet Earth, nor did chapters 6-9. John 1:1 probably won’t either, but it’s always good to read opposing viewpoints, don’t you think? I’ll keep an eye out for the announcement that the Wedge Document has been fully implemented; not holding my breath over that one either. Enjoy. I’m going to the driving range.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 7:53 am
Bob, this link contalns the full information about the Pandas and People accusations of Dr. Barbara Forrest as responded to by Casey Luskin, including links to all 10 of his 2006 series by the same title.
the Kitzmiller case is hardly an example of ID’s lack of credibility as science.
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account
http://www.discovery.org/a/4207
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Bob, I commend you for your apology, however, while you demeanor has improved (somewhat), your convictions, apparently based on your apparent dedication to atheism still shines through.
You should take the time to read this response from Casey Luskin concerning the Wedge Document’s use in the trial. It also contains a link to the Discovery Institute’s original response concerning the Wedge Document revelation and how it was used to attack them.
“Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part IV: The “Wedge Document””
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_3002556.html
As for Indiana State Representatives Senate Bill 89 you may want to see DI’s brief comment against it.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/discovery_insti_1055841.html
As for your comments:
“then bang my head against the wall”, “then I’ll be ready to beat my head against the wall again”
I hope they are not a result of you taste in authors and rejection of those Genesis texts.
At any rate, it does not seem that you are serious about exploring your rational for the world view you hold.
I have found that when people throw around insulting comments against God, Christianity and ID and champion evolution-atheism and keeping God out of education, government and politics; they are not usually interested in an intelligent dialogue that explores the logic of their views to closely.
You have my prayers and sympathy. Please be very careful on those curves while driving.
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 8:37 am
The question isn’t why the religious believe ID. The question is why do the religious of all backgrounds, including Catholics and Orthodox, reject ID unless their religion demands they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Arthur,
It is not correct that believing in Intelligent Design is predicated upon a belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis. The two are simply not at all dependent. Arthur, why not closely read the work done by Michael Behe? Behe is a micro-biologist. He is a professor at Lehigh University. His book clearly outlines the science behind ID and his work has absolutely nothing to do with the book of Genesis.
You are probably confusing ID with Creationism. Creationism has been taught, primarily, by the Institute for Creation Research which is a group of scientists who are also Christians. The scientists at ICR believe the age of the earth is 6-10,000 years old. That belief is based, primarily, upon evidence they gather from such sources as the Grand Canyon. Even though the scientists at ICR, and they are legitimate scientists with plenty of PHD’s, believe in a young earth, the theory of Creationism is not at all dependent upon a young earth or a literal interpretation of Genesis. Each conclusion is believed by the same group of scientists but the conclusions are independent. The scientists at ICR base their beliefs on what they believe is a proper understanding of the scientific evidence. In short, they believe in Catastrophism rather than Uniformitarianism, but those are subjects that you would need to study for yourself if you are interested.
I have not read Michael Behe in about 10 years, however, I am quite sure he believes in guided evolution that took hundreds of millions of years. Again though, his basic point is that unguided evolution is simply mathematically and scientifically impossible, and whether the Designer (God if you prefer) guided the process over 6,000 years or 4 billion years is irrelevant to his research. Behe’s work is not at all dependent upon a young earth.
In short, Behe’s detractors are saying that ID is not testable therefore not falsifiable, therefore not science. Well, basically true, but evolution is also not testable. Behe’s basic approach is to prove, very convincingly, that evolution by random selection simply will not produce the complex life systems in our world. Behe shows quite thoroughly that even the simplest life forms must have been designed, therefore, there must be a Designer.
Arthur, Behe is a real and completely credentialed scientist. His detractors, often other scientists, insist that his work is not science, but if you look carefully at what his detractors are saying you will find they are eliminating Behe’s work by definition rather than refutation. Behe offers extremely persuasive argument if you will take the time to genuinely study his work. Randy
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Randy,
You are correct. The people who believe in creationism are those who must believe it. Catholics can believe in literal creation or guided evolution, so they embrace guided evolution. Most religionists are free to have any belief they want on the topic, so they choose evolution. The point is that atheism doesn’t cause belief in evolution, but religious requirements cause belief in creationism/ID. When people have a choice, they choose evolution.
Arthur
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm
It’s pseudo-science. Demski ignores evolutionary theory with his ridiculous noton of irreducible complexity. He ought to read Dawkins without his well-trained eyes ever eying for misunderstanding!
LikeLike
February 4, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Author I need to get clarity on you following comments:
“Catholics can believe in literal creation or guided evolution, so they embrace guided evolution” #18
Are you saying that all Catholics are evolutionists and not reject evolution or are you referring to the official doctrine of the Catholic Church? If the former what is your source?
You said:
“Most religionists are free to have any belief they want on the topic, so they choose evolution.”
Do you know for sure that “most” choose evolution? If so how do you know this? If this is true have you any idea why that is, why do “religionists” choose evolution?
You said:
“The point is that atheism doesn’t cause belief in evolution, but religious requirements cause belief in creationism/ID.”
On what do you base this claim? Why is it that you feel that atheism does not require or cause belief in evolution, especially when Dr. Richard Dawkins has publicly acknowledged that it does?
Also, are you saying that no creationists or ID defenders base any aspect of their view on their sound knowledge of science?
You said:
“When people have a choice, they choose evolution.”
On what do you base this generalization? I have conducted my own personal surveys and quite often most people I spoke to outright rejected evolution. On the other hand the surveys that had a higher total of evolutionists revealed that the evolutionist did not understand the foundations of evolution but simply accepted that it was true because they heard that most scientists believed it and they felt that they must know what they are talking about.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 7:50 am
Very well said Danzil. Will Arthur and Lord Griggs actually address your points?
Arthur, I did not say that those who believe in Creationism are those who must believe it. My point was exactly the opposite. It is not correct that “when people have a choice, they choose evolution.” Just one example: Michael Behe, the bio-chemist professor from Lehigh, believed wholeheartedly in evolution – until he personally studied the subject. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of scientists who have concluded that evolution is a totally inadequate theory upon which to base the myriad of complex life forms we see on this earth.
Lord Griggs, ID and Creationism are not psuedo science, regardless of how many times you repeat that mantra, it simply is not true. Each are scientific theories that are well researched and presented by qualified scientists. When scientists such as Dawkins claim that “Intelligent Design is not science” what they are actually saying is definitional rather than refutational. Their exclusion of ID from the realm of science, by definition rather than by refuting the arguments, would astound the earliest scientists such as Newton.
You both seem to believe that those who believe in ID or Creationism are either dumb, uneducated, or trapped in a religious mindset. You are just wrong. There are Christians who believe in ID and/or Creationism who are just as educated as any atheist you know, just as intelligent as Dawkins, and not at all trapped in a religious mindset. We believe what we believe because we have personally studied the evidence.
Randy
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 9:32 am
I was wondering when comments about my religious convictions would come up; I suspected my “tone” would get that response. You guys are so predictable it almost takes the fun out of it. Wonder if it has something to do with gene expression and protein translation in the devoutly religious upper brain. They didn’t teach that level of detail when I took biochemistry and genetics after grad school, 30 years ago. I wonder if Dr. Behe covers that in his class lectures. We can trade competing website links until we are blue in the face. I’ll let Dr. Behe’s colleagues at Lehigh, on their Biological Sciences homepage, speak to his science. By the way, I’m not atheist, but as Dr. Dembski suggests, that shouldn’t be relevant, should it?
Speaking of Dr. Behe, I finished the book. Still looks to me like Designer, with a capital D. Sorry, but that won’t do. At appears to me that you guys are seeking the assurance of absolute truth. The only absolutes truths I can think of off the top of my head are faith in sacred texts, mathematical theorems and legalistic truth, i.e., the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (Phillip Johnson?). Jason can probably come up with some more. Trouble is, scientific truth is never, ever absolute, it’s always tentative. Despite Dr. Behe’s protests to the contrary, absolute truth is the timid shortcut he claims it isn’t. It’s an excuse for not proposing the next hypothesis, for doing the next set of experiments and enduring the next round of peer review. Until ID scientists stop writing books and start doing the hard work of hypotheses based on tentative truth, without capital D, and submit their results for peer review in “atheistic” science journals (sorry, couldn’t resist), they will never be accepted as doing science. Since the science goals of the Wedge strategy have not been met (in my opinion), that leaves the goals of turning science into an enterprise based on absolute truth. Until either of those occurs, will you please stop demanding my grandson be taught ID as science? Gotta go. Almost done with Ruse, Phillip Johnson awaits. Need to explore this truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth approach to science. Any suggestions for further reading? Don’t say the Bible, I did that in high school. I read Hitchins right after he died (too absolute for me), Tillich a couple of weeks later (also too absolute). Are there other forms of absolute truth, related to ID, I may not be aware of? I already tackled Dawkins vs. Dembski.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 10:26 am
Bob,
You mentioned that you read the Bible in High School. I assume you are indicating the Bible is something one should not read once one is more educated and mature. Well, that view is certainly the prevalent view, especially among very educated and intelligent people, and I mean that without any sarcasm.
In my case, I did not read the Bible in High School. I did not start reading it until I was 29. I started reading it after I studied Creationism, very little before. I studied the work of the Institute for Creation Research for 4 years, realized there really is concrete and conclusive evidence that there is a God and I decided I should try to learn who that God is and what that God is like. ( I’m still working on that 🙂 ) I started reading the Bible, and since then I have read it about 35 times. It is a fascinating book. It is far more complex than most realize. (And I did not stop reading other than the Bible.)
I know you will make quite good fun of all this, and that is your prerogative. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it.
Randy
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Bob you said:
“You guys are so predictable it almost takes the fun out of it.”
Being predictable is good that means you know where I am coming from today and won’t be confused when you talk to me tomorrow.
As you can see from my comments in post #15 you are predictable as well.
You said:
“Wonder if it has something to do with gene expression and protein translation in the devoutly religious upper brain. They didn’t teach that level of detail when I took biochemistry and genetics after grad school, 30 years ago.”
Not quite, it is more likely that it has to do with us using the intelligence that God has created us with to honestly examine the data and sincerely read and study His word. Try as you might you will never find a “scientific” reason for Faith in God or logic for that matter. But if you would repent and turn from your pride God has promised to open your eyes that you might see.
St. Matthew 13:12-15, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 St. Matthew 11:27-28
You said:
“I’ll let Dr. Behe’s colleagues at Lehigh, on their Biological Sciences homepage, speak to his science.”
I’ve read it and if you have you should know that it does not provide any evidence that Behe is incorrect about his science, it just states their official decision to distance themselves his conclusions. No doubt to save face with the powers that be in the science community. But nothing said there defends evolution as science; or do you feel that the “majority must be correct” principle applies here.
You said:
“By the way, I’m not atheist, but as Dr. Dembski suggests, that shouldn’t be relevant, should it?”
That depends on what you are referring to. Indeed it is relevant when discussing science or religion. Not knowing the context of Dr. Dembski’s comment I can’t say how it applies.
By the way, since you claim not to be atheist, what are you? Just for clarity sake.
You said:
“Trouble is, scientific truth is never, ever absolute, it’s always tentative.”
But again that depends on the context or when you want to dabble in philosophy when discussing science. Philosophically speaking nothing from the human perspective may be said to be absolute. But God can speak in absolutes. And even scientifically speaking it can be said absolutely that I exist and that we are communicating with each other via the internet etc.
That is unless you want to invoke some strange philosophical principle.
What I fine interesting is that some evolutionists claim that evolution is an absolute fact when referring to how all life on earth came about, like your friend Richard Dawkins but you did not mention him when you made you comment. Why? Is it that he is only more interesting when it is convenient?
As for you piece on Dr. Behe and what you consider the proper path for qualifying as science, I noticed that you have ignored Jason’s response to your arguments on this issue. As I said, I don’t think you are interested in serious dialogue to explore your points of view. You are just repeating arguments already addressed and you are not providing any intelligent rebuttal.
I think you know what you are doing and you are doing so to avoid facing intellectual and scientific defeat. The problem is that if you fail to intelligently reply you are defeated so why continue? Is this a game to you to pass time?
No amount of posturing and game playing will change the “fact” that scientists have no answer for how life began and how the various life forms came about. It is a fact that life is extremely complex and that that complexity cannot be explained by random chance or whatever else you prefer to call it. It is a fact that life is generated and duplicated complex information mechanisms that demand an intelligent source based on what we know about information.
I am curious as to why you are here and why you keep coming back?
Yes, you do indeed communicate like an atheist.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Everyone knows “intelligent design” are code words dishonest Christians use when they really mean “supernatural magic”. Invoking intelligent design equals invoking a fairy’s magic wand.
I once went to a website infested with magical intelligent design creationists and I tried to explain they were invoking magic. Either they were being dishonest or they were just plain stupid, but they kept denying they believed in magic.
Creationists don’t understand science and they don’t understand their own fantasies.
By the way every scientist who has ever heard of your Magic theorist, Bill Dembski, agrees he’s a liar and an idiot. You shouldn’t invoke professional idiots unless you enjoy being laughed at.
This is your other problem: “many people who are interested in the debate”
There is no debate. Evolution has been an established truth for more than a century and today it’s the strongest fact of science. Magical creationism, also known as magical intelligent design creationism, is a childish idiotic religious fantasy for uneducated morons.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 7:44 am
Human ape: Man, why did you do that? I was having fun. I atoned for the sins of my first post (more or less). It was just starting to get interesting and now you’re going to get them all riled up again. Watch the vitriol fly now. Things are going down hill from here.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 9:33 am
Griggs, Just in case you are having a senior moment, on the thread titled:
“Demanding the Impossible: Empiricists Demand the Wrong Kind of Evidence for God’s Existence”, both Jason (#11) and myself (#12) have left responses to your posts that you have not yet replied to, yet you are popping up on different thread throwing word and running to other posts without facing your audience.
I am beginning to see a pattern here.
I agree with Jason, name dropping is not an effective way to have a dialogue or defend a point. Of course neither may be your intention so I ask again what your intention here is since it is clearly not to defend your point of view?
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 9:36 am
Bob, not necessarily. I am willing to stay focused if you are.
Will you be responding you my posts (#24)?
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 11:37 am
Ape, (there’s nothing human about Apes), is it beyond your intellectual ability to be logical about your arguments (#25)?
Why would it have to be dishonest for a science professional seeking to minimize evolutionist’s objections to his scientific arguments by keeping the focus on science? Why are you unwilling to stay focused on the data that is being argued by ID defenders? Isn’t it because you can’t refute the data and the arguments that ID puts forward and so you shift the focus on the designer to avoid dealing with the ramifications of the design?
Not everyone is fooled by your frivolous evolutionist objection. Some of us can see through the fake argument and see it for what it really is, a distraction, and a diversionary tactic to avoid the real issue.
Perhaps you would like to try and prove me wrong by presenting your logical, scientific reason for rejecting ID as a legitimate scientific view,
(keeping Jason’s points in post #7 in mind).
While you are at it perhaps you can explain to us why “magic” and “fairy tale” does not fit the evolutionist’s explanation for how life began and it’s diversity.
By the way, how would you describe someone who says things like:
“Creationists don’t understand science” which would indicate no creationists including those with science degrees from reputable universities, and “every scientist who has ever heard of….Bill Dembski agrees he’s a liar and an idiot”, which would include all creationists and ID scientists who agree with and support Dembski, and “evolution..it’s the strongest fact of science”, which would make evolutionists who say that nothing in science can be called a fact, liars?
But since evolution is not a fact and has no scientific proof to support its view of origins or it’s explanation for the various life forms on earth and yet you said it is the strongest fact of science, would any of the colorful language that you used to describe creationist and ID defenders apply to you? I am refering to your use of “stupid”, “Idiot”, “childish” and “uneducated moron”.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Evolution is indeed a fact that explains other facts. Now, its component sub-theories are ever revised, but that voices science’s success.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm
My agenda is to further the dialogue betwixt naturalists and supernaturalists. Yes to answering points! I just was so interested in other posts, that I delaid coming back to respond to your points.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Jason, why is their design in an argument from incredulity in that it poses the begged question of design – to design-,because supernaturalists cannot fathom that patterns are not designs but the products of natural cause and they answer with God, without giving a valid reason!
Leibniz’s colossal blunder is to ask the why is there something rather than nothing when why would nothing be possible as the law of conservation holds and thus, to answer with God, is just an example of the argument from ignorance.
The law of conservation deals with energy and as the quantum fields are such , they ever remain eternal. Vilenkin is for quantum tunnelling which belies your claim of what he affirms. Astrophysicists will find the evidence for or against that whilst none can affirm God as an efficient ,sufficient,necessary or primary cause as Googling the presumption of naturalism so attests. We no more need Him as that Ultimate Explanation than we need gremlins in mechanics or demons in psychology as ultimate explanations.No, those two do rank with God-talk as all three remain unsubstantiated. Personal explanation remains ever out of the question as Gregory Dawes notes in ” Theism and Explanation.”
The scientist can further my explanation about the fields.
Google also the ignostic-Ockham.
Oh, the problem of Heaven keel hauls all defenses and thediocies,demanding theistic consistency, and that’s no hobgoblin of little minds!
Again, Lamberth’s naturalistic arguments about God comes to the fore.
Thanks for the pleasant interchange.
Carneades of Ga.
LikeLike
February 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Danzil, I hope I’ve given a glimpse of what I contend and why.
Randy and others, on-line evolution resources rebut creationism’s phony facts. They note the modus operandi of distorting sources, using out- dated ones and such.Creatonists ever fail to fathom the implications of their findings.
Tha’s why such calls for objurgating creationism. The surrebuttals to evolutionists’ rebuttals fail,because they also contain errors.
We ,as great apes, don’t have the assurance that Plantinga claims for God’s assuring truth with our faculties, as evolution just permits adequate adaptation and thus, we do have faulty faculties. We learn by trial and error to trust and -mistrust then and do require instruments to further their usefullness.
Thus, without using well-trained eyes to avoid reality, people just have to fail!
http://skepticicality.blogspot.com has articles on how to find the truth.
Y’all might respond to that blog and my others so set me straight!
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 7:47 am
Griggs you said:
#30 “Evolution is indeed a fact that explains other facts. Now, its component sub-theories are ever revised, but that voices science’s success.”
Saying it is does not explain why it is. Please provide your argument for your claim concerning evolution.
You said:
#31 “My agenda is to further the dialogue betwixt naturalists and supernaturalists. Yes to answering points! I just was so interested in other posts, that I delaid coming back to respond to your points.”
Then I can expect replies to me question and comments concerning your posts. I look forward to your replies.
you said: #33
“Danzil, I hope I’ve given a glimpse of what I contend and why.”
Griggs, You have only given me what you contend and a general “why” but nothing that you said in your #33 post defends you argument. I am asking for your scientific reasons for your defense of evolution.
I must be honest in saying that I found it difficult to read your post #33 and even more difficult to follow or understand what you were saying. It could me and my inability to grasp all of what you said due to how you said it but I will wait to see if anyone else shares my problem with it. If not I will gleam what I can from their clear understanding and reply to your points then. I can say with relative certainty that you have not provided scientific argument to defend your view, only names and references along with claims.
Finally, I hope you will respond to my other responces to you statements here and on other threads.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:02 am
Bob you said post #6:
“Nice epistemology argument Jason, but you missed the point. I believe the question was why scientists don’t accept intelligent design as science.”
However I believe it is you who missed the point. Jason was not replying to the original post but to Griggs as he clearly stated in his second paragraph in post #5.
You also made an error when you said:
“Dembski is right, one’s theology shouldn’t matter”
Since that is not what Dembski said nor what he meant by his comment.
What he said was that there was no “merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep.”
By this he meant that the credibility of one’s science cannot be determined by those they associate with or by those who agree with one’s views for that matter. It stands on its scientific defense and integrity so you made two mistakes.
Finally, your research seems to be as bad as your comprehension as you apparently did not bother to examine the Discovery Institute’s report on and rebuttal of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, or you would have at least understood, (if not agreed with), the weakness of the atheist, evolutionists arguments and the fowl play involved in getting their victory.
I did not think you would bother to read the information in the links I provided from the Discovery Institute.
As you seem to pay little attention to context and are apparently quite deficient in you investigative practice, which if I am correct, would affect your ability to draw sound conclusions , I wonder how this handicap affects your ability to break the strangle hold that evolution has on your world view.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 11:02 am
Danzil, I find from previous Google searches that the Discovery Institute emits no better information than any plain creatoinist organization. I care not to enter details of every argument. I know the tricks of the trade as noted.
Darwin answered himself why no irreducible complexity exists in formulating the theory of evoluton by illuminating that it is a step by step process, one condition permitting others to follow such that no divine intent enters. Were this not true, then we would not be able to vary experiments. Then it would be putting the present before the past and the event before the cause, making for backwards causation.
Wih Aquinas, intelligent design authors put the bulls-eye on the arrow after it lands instead of the arrow landing on it!
Evolution is no stranglehold but instead the liberating force of discovery of new ways to combat bacteria, new facts about the interrelationship of living things and so forth. The argument to design and intelligent design cannot provide evidence of the methods the Intelligent Designer uses to design, thereby providing no evidence for it as opposed to methodological naturalism, which most scientists follow, because it fructifies – furthers inquiry, and thus no argument from authority.
I shall, however, follow your links henceforth, and you can check out Talk Origins, Talk Reason and other such sites.
No, that putative fowl play would be a misunerstanding of how the law works, I daresay. However, I’ll check that out when possible.
I still find this blog a good source of information about why y’all think as you do and note that you respect us others. I hope that my recommending it in my blogs and tweets will bring more to the site!
Being a fallibilist , I as” Fr. Griggs rest in my Socratic inquiry and humble naturalism.”
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 11:14 am
Jason ,Newton and others were pre-Darwin and pre-Popper, so one fathoms why they couldn’t vouchsafe creationism. And , who would vouchsafe what Newton says about alchemy and other matters that we now find erroneous?
Now, as to my particular arguments, would that others would comment so as to further our conversation, not the harangue of television at times! Even fellow skeptics might disagree with me!
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Griggs, thanks for the response.
While it is useful to search what is available online about organizations, you should know that what is said is not necessarily true or fully reliable. It is always best to let people and organizations speak for themselves whether you believe or agree with them or not. So it is good that you have agreed to hear what they have to say for themselves.
You said concerning Darwin’s defense of evolution:
“…it is a step by step process, one condition permitting others to follow such that no divine intent enters.”
But where is that seen in nature or proven by science? Why don’t we see every step or even most steps today? How did the first gene form and duplicate etc. Just saying it happened that way does not provide evidence that substantiates the claim.
I did not quite understand you following point:
“Were this not true, then we would not be able to vary experiments. Then it would be putting the present before the past and the event before the cause, making for backwards causation.”
Please explain.
You said:
“Evolution is no stranglehold but instead the liberating force of discovery of new ways to combat bacteria, new facts about the interrelationship of living things and so forth”
But what kind of evolution are you talking about, small changes due to mutation? If so then I would agree but I choose not to refer to is as “evolution” since evolutionists tend to bait and switch between versions of evolution. What you described is not the kind of evolution I am talking about. Those changes are limited and remain within their kinds. That is not a process by which the evolution of the various life forms could have arrived. Additionally, evolutionists have gone on record acknowledging that evolution is not used in science research.
Thanks for you link recommendations I have frequented Talk Origins but I was not aware of Talk Reason. I will check it out.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Dan, those small steps lead to genera and on up the ladder as species become ever more different. We’ve so many links that where to draw them calls for debate.
Where eixists any citation that evolutionists don’t use evolution in scientific research/? It is th eunifying principle!That bespeaks of misunderstanging
Oh, scientists would not be capable of varying experiment,because the results would be programmed with intent rather than with sequencing, each step permitting the next. Science does not find that intent but instead that mechanical sequencing.
For evidence for sequential steps, read Dawkns.Kenneth Miller, with whom I strongl disagree, finds compatibiltity with his Catholic faith and evolution.My disagreement is over that of divine intent. Google the teleonomic argument about that,please.
Baraminology suffers from ill-defined groups.
I do appreciate your willingness to discuss all this so as for us all to better understand one another!
I was just now on Wintery Knight about this matter. Just as naturalists differ,you supernaturalists differ. Some are Calvinists and some rightly dismiss Calvinism. Some are fideists whilst others are proponents of natural/ rational theology and others somewher inbetween.
http://skepticicality.blogspot.com
http;// theignosticatheologian. wordpress.com I’ve around ninety blogs.They have reblogged articles with my comments and my own articles. They can use thoughtful posts! I do have auto-posting so that articles appear in more than one blog and some I reblog from other of my blogs. I comibne and permute my arguments. I posted at many other sites.including Christian ones as Googling skeptic griggs attests [a nd other nickanmes mentioned.].
Ti’s not I but the arguments themselves merit attention! I’ve devised some as Googling Lamberth’s naturalistic arguments about God attests.
What I can’t stand is the use of symbolic logic!
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:09 pm
http://theignosticatheologian.wordpress.com
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm
http://theignosticatheologian.blogspot.com
Sorry.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm
It is registered there but sometimes things go amiss.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Finally, I went to that blog to find its real address!
http:theatheologian.blospot.com . My notes were wrong.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 10:21 pm
http://theatheologian.blogspot.com
Ugh!
LikeLike
February 8, 2012 at 8:52 am
Griggs you said:
“Dan, those small steps lead to genera and on up the ladder as species become ever more different. We’ve so many links that where to draw them calls for debate.”
But what you have described in the first part is simple changes within kinds which I agree happens. But where do you see “species” become so different that they give rise to another creature? And if we have so many links, why are the same few “links” used as examples of evolution in evolution documentaries, magazines and textbooks. Examples that as you said are debated even among evolutionists.
My point is that there are no scientific examples of one species becoming another kind of creature. Both selection and mutation are extremely limited and cannot account for the arrival of different kinds of life forms. Additionally, and I should say more importantly you have to address the origin of life, the first gene etc. That cannot logically be bypassed when discussing evolution as it is the starting point.
You asked:
“Where exists any citation that evolutionists don’t use evolution in scientific research/?”
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has preceded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, Biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all.”
(Evolutionist, Dr. Maro Kirsohner, co-author of The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, member of NAS, quoted in Peter Dizikes, “Missing Links,” Boston Globe, October 23, 2005.)
“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodoslus Dobzhansky’s dictum that `nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.” (Adam S. Wilkins, “Intro,” BioEssays 22no. 12 (2000):1051.)
You said:
“It is the unifying principle! That bespeaks of misunderstanding
Oh, scientists would not be capable of varying experiment, because the results would be programmed with intent rather than with sequencing, each step permitting the next. Science does not find that intent but instead that mechanical sequencing.”
I am not clear as to why you hold this view. What about evolution actually unifies anything? And why is evolution necessary for scientist to vary experiments?
How do you defend undirected (accidental, chance) “just right” step by step sequencing when it is mathematically and logically impossible for undirected step by step sequences in the development of life to occur in just the right manner to result in all of the many different life forms? Are you aware that those “steps” are the result of programing? Where did the information originate from?
When you say “science” what are you referring to? Since there are many scientists who do indeed find intent in life’s makeup, functions and operations.
You said:
“For evidence for sequential steps, read Dawkns. Kenneth Miller, with whom I strongly disagree, finds compatibility with his Catholic faith and evolution. My disagreement is over that of divine intent. Google the teleonomic argument about that, please.”
Teleology is simply an evolutionist interpretation and explanation of the clear complexity and order that we see in living organisms. My question is what argument from Teleology do you feel logically explains the order, complexity and information programing in living organisms?
Dawkins is an atheist who hates God and anything that would acknowledge Him. His arguments are illogical and his key defenses for evolution are based on assumptions and or unsubstantiated claims. Even some of his fellow evolutionists acknowledge serious issues with him. As for Kenneth Miller, his claim as a Catholic does nothing for his credibility as a scientists or educator. Nor does it aid his credibility as a Christian.
He is an apologist for evolution and he is well taken care of by the evolution science community. None of this establishes his credibility as a scientist so perhaps you can present to us the best argument that you feel Miller or Dawkins has made to prove their view on evolution and we can examine them.
Thanks for the links I will check them out.
LikeLike
February 11, 2012 at 6:06 am
I spent some time pondering how I should respond to the comments from my second post and actually wrote up a long list of replies to each question. I thought they were really good, stinging rebuttals on each point and then it dawned on me that was irrelevant. I was missing the point. In fact, most of the exchanges here so far have missed the point. The issue is not really the validity of evolution or ID. It seems to me that evolution has been targeted, since it is such a divisive issue, as a means to change how science is done. The question isn’t really what is and is not science, but would science be better done, and thus would society be better off, if science recognized the value of absolute truth? Put simply, would making a paradigm change to the scientific method to allow the God hypotheses make for better science? My reading of Behe, Johnson and Dembski suggests to me that they believe it would and that is what they are really interested in (the Wedge strategy). Speaking from my own perspective, as someone who spent 40 years of his waking hours in front of a fume hood and in pilot plants doing science, I believe it wouldn’t, and I suspect that 99.9% of the other scientists on the planet would agree with me.
Johnson laments that he can never engage a scientist as to the truthfulness of his theory because the scientist will never admit his theory is absolutely true. The scientist will always fall back on the condition that his theory is always subject to modification (I’m paraphrasing here, I already took Darwin on Trial back to the library). He then complains when the scientist modifies his theory when faced with “suprising” results, such as with gene mutation neutrality, rather than discarding the entire theory as being completely invalid because of the new data. The failure here is not with the theory, but with the understanding of the certitude of the theory. A scientist does not have any confidence that an untested hypothesis is representative of a natural phenomenon, but his confidence increases when the hypothesis has been corroborated. Confidence levels increase further as subsequent hypotheses are also corroborated. Eventually a large body of data, based on multiple corroborated hypotheses, often from several fields of study, forms the basis of a scientific theory (the complete polar opposite of the “just a guess” definition of a theory used by the non-scientific layman in everyday discourse). The scientist has a high level of confidence that his theory is a very good representative model for the natural phenomenon under study. Still, the theory is only tentative, always subject to modification in light of surprising results, and never accepted as absolutely true. A scientist always questions and never accepts an appeal to the authority of absolute truth. Johnson apparently doesn’t or can’t understand that (because of his training as a lawyer?).
Ruse calls the God hypothesis a show stopper (I know you guys loathe Ruse for his role in McLean v. Arkansas, but for the sake of this discussion, deal with it). I would be slightly blunter than Ruse and call the God hypothesis an intellectual dead end. I am not denigrating anyone’s search for truth and meaning in life; I am merely speaking from a strictly SCIENTIFIC point of view. As I mentioned in my second post, the God hypothesis is a dead end because it effectively terminates scientific exploration. If one invokes “God did it”, then what? What is the next hypothesis? If God did it, I believe it and that’s that, what is the incentive to ask the next question and run the next experiment? The God hypothesis is an appeal to absolute authority and essentially terminates further scientific exploration. That is not how science has been done for the past 300 years and I believe those other 99.9% of the scientists on the planet will not want to go to that paradigm of scientific discovery.
The theory of evolution represents 150 years of tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of fields of study generating data from probably hundreds of thousands of hypotheses. It has been modified and will continue to be modified as new data from newly identified alternate mechanisms of action require it. It will only be replaced when new data which does not make an appeal to authority, does not invoke the God hypothesis, indicates the theory is fundamentally wrong. Newton appealed to God to nudge the planets back into orbit when his calculations couldn’t explain the orbit of Mercury. Einstein corrected him with new math, new hypotheses and new data. But, we didn’t toss out Newton after Einstein came along; his math is still used for most gravity calculations. Evolution scientist will never throw out the theory of evolution based on appeals to the God hypothesis. If ID scientists want to get their ideas accepted, they will need to stop appealing to God as the ultimate explanation and start proposing hypotheses and generating corroborating data without Him. Science will fight tooth and nail to prevent a change in the paradigm of the scientific method to allow the God hypothesis. It’s a dead end, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking.
Enough. I’m normally more succinct than this. I’m going back to my reading. Working my way through Gould, John Haught is next. If you guys would like to get some perspective on all of this, I suggest Ecklund’s Science vs. Evolution, if you’re not afraid of reading about and trying to understand other viewpoints.
LikeLike
February 11, 2012 at 6:59 pm
That’s a shame Bob because I would have loved to hear your rebuttal. But I even disagree with your assessment about the comments here. I don’t think we are missing the point and the issue is indeed the validity of evolution and ID. And to conclude that evolution is being targeted to change how science is done is not sensible. Not only is no one here capable of accomplishing such a change but the kind of evolution I am discussing is not science.
Additionally, as I noted in another post, evolution is not used in science research. And it is not necessary to discuss evolution to teach science. This makes the Wedge document irrelevant. So your point is flawed and I suspect that it is a diversion to avoid defending your faith in evolution.
For you to suggest that ID defenders are only interested in getting God into science misses the point I made about evolution and the fact that many scientists do acknowledge God in their science research. As for Behe and the others, they as I recognize the fact that evolution is hurting science because of its false conclusions and foundations. This is why I would be interested in your defense, because I suspect that your motives for championing evolution transcends science and rests either in a religious cause or one of ego or both.
In your speech you said:
“A scientist always questions and never accepts an appeal to the authority of absolute truth. Johnson apparently doesn’t or can’t understand that (because of his training as a lawyer?).”
I think you are taking advantage of precisely what your brand of science understanding was developed for, to confuse the issue and make falsely named science acceptable.
If a “science” view is founded on false premises and more falsehood is built on it, how is that benefiting science? Johnson and the others understand this and they understand the history behind the corruption in science.
Your “God Hypothesis-dead end” mantra is refuted by creationists’ scientist both past and present who excel in research. That argument is dishonest and only seeks to smoke screen the problem that ID poses for evolution.
You have fallen (either willingly or unwillingly), for the evolutionist science communities trick of shifting the focus to avoid the facts and the real issue. This is not about faith in God stopping science research and discovery; it’s about denying the evidence to avoid the God conclusion. To acknowledge the ID conclusion would expose the scam the science community has been running on the public. That is why so much is done to silence ID as a non-science.
Rather that talking around the issue how about dealing with the data?
LikeLike
February 12, 2012 at 7:27 am
Bob, well said. Despite protestations of creationists that they’re about to win the ideological, scientific, and popular culture war; I’m reminded of the scene in Holy Grail where a limbless fighter fights on with cries of ‘come back here I’ll bite off your kneecaps’. I would say more but I’m already in a discussion, defending Darwin’s good reputation, with our Danzil-in-distress on another thread.
B Andrew
LikeLike
February 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm
But you are not doing well there B. Andrew Leder. And since you find Bob’s comments so well stated perhaps you can respond to my reply to him. (After you have responded to my reply on the other post of course).
LikeLike
February 12, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Danzil, I like my odds there just fine. Of course, neither of us will be the judge of our relative effectiveness vs. each other.
I’ve already explained what you must do, in your own words describe Darwin’s theory, for me further address your comments. If you don’t answer, it won’t definitively mean you can’t but it will be a justifiable suspicion for future readers. Eggs against a castle.
I don’t think Bob needs help here, though I may need his. After all I’m only a wordsmith with a passion and Bob is a real scientist.
LikeLike
February 13, 2012 at 3:50 am
I believe I have presented a viable argument as to “why the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science”. When the discussion includes declarations such as “it is not necessary to discuss evolution to teach science” and “evolution is not used in science research”, it is obvioulsy time to move on. For a more informed debate on the issues, I suggest Paul Krutz’ Science and Religion. Gould’s Rocks of Ages provides another appropriate perspective (and is actually a fun read).
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 6:45 am
B. Andrew Leder Says post #50:
“Danzil, I like my odds there just fine. Of course, neither of us will be the judge of our relative effectiveness vs. each other.
I’ve already explained what you must do, in your own words describe Darwin’s theory, for me further address your comments. If you don’t answer, it won’t definitively mean you can’t but it will be a justifiable suspicion for future readers. Eggs against a castle.”
Then I guess we are done with our dialogue on this matter. I am willing to let the readers judge who has been reasonable and argued intelligently here and who has not been reasonable or engaging in their defense of their arguments.
I will be interesting to see what you do from here on however; will you block all of your dialogues here with requests for useless information and then refuse to answers questions until they are answered. Will you continue posting as if nothing has happed and act as if you have been engaging. Or will you simply keep attacking ID and creation science without any meaningful scientific reason. Time will tell.
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 7:15 am
Bob Says post#51:
“I believe I have presented a viable argument as to “why the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science”.
Then apparently what you believe and the reality of this thread are not agreeing. You have ignored Jason’s responses to your claims and you have for the most part ignored my responses as well. Your replies too the few of my responses that you chose to reply to have been denials with no evidence to substantiate them and objection with no rational arguments for support. Then you tell me that you will answer after I tell you what Darwin’s Natural Selection was without referencing anyone using my own words.
Im not clear as to what viable arguments you have presented.
You said:
“When the discussion includes declarations such as “it is not necessary to discuss evolution to teach science” and “evolution is not used in science research”, it is obvioulsy time to move on. For a more informed debate on the issues,”
But you have not bothered to acknowledge that I provided quotes from evolutionist Dr. Maro Krsohner and Adam s. wilkins to prove my point.
I guess it is time to move on but I doubt that you will because you are driven to expel God from science. The question is, what is your real motivation?
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Danzil, then please describe evolution as you see it and – how we see it!
How could there exist evidence for creationism as it depends on out of context quotes, misunderstood matters, hardly any research and not understanding implications of creationist arguments as counter-creation books note?
Show stoppers stop people’s learning- logicide at work!
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Those sequentialities themselves argue against your math! Randomness and necessity both rule! Natural laws, chaos, regularity and order inhere in Nature so to find Him as that first cause is the reverse of what would have to be in that He’d depend on them as He’d per the Euthyphro would have to depend on morality to issue commandments!
No, He cannot serve as any serious explanation anymore than demons and gremlins can as [Google:] the ignostic-Ockham challenge notes.
Google lamberth’s naturalistic arguments about God to see mine and others’ arguments in detail.
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Griggs you said post #54:
“Danzil, then please describe evolution as you see it and – how we see it!”
Since I do not see evolution I can only work with what you say about it.
The two major views are non-theistic evolution and theistic evolution.
One rejecting any activity by God and the other incorporating God in the process.
Both however envision life transforming from lower to higher life forms via mutation and natural selection over millions of years. One claims God started the process while the other insists that the process started by itself.
Creationists/creation science, insist that life was began by God who created all life forms with the capacity for limited change without the use of evolution. Both sides rely on the same scientific data but interpret that data based partly on their world view. However, only one world view is logical while the other is illogical. This is a rough draft of the situation.
You said:
“How could there exist evidence for creationism as it depends on out of context quotes, misunderstood matters, hardly any research and not understanding implications of creationist arguments as counter-creation books note?”
I submit to you that your choice of counter-creation books may well be your problem as they are rarely willing to honestly represent the creation science view.
Both sides are guilty of out of context quotes of the other but such quote don’t determine scientific truth. Both sides misunderstand matters but neither does that determine scientific truth. To say creationist scientists hardly do any research is not honest as history is full of creationist’s research in a variety of fields. As for the implications of our arguments, perhaps you can state a few and allow me to address them. It may be that the implications suggested by evolutionists seeking to discredit the creationists view are incorrect.
You said:
“Show stoppers stop people’s learning- logicide at work!”
You will have to demonstrate that this is applicable to creation scientists.
LikeLike
February 14, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Griggs you said post#55:
Those sequentialities themselves argue against your math! Randomness and necessity both rule!”
But how do you define Randomness and how do you determine that what you see is not intended and not random given the circumstances? “Necessity” “Randomness” these are just word unless placed in the context of a clear subject. Let’s be clear because you have not answered my question. How does those “sequentialities” argue against my math? How does unguided randomness and “necessity” result in multitudes of just right events to cause life too began and to diversify into millions of life forms many with emotions and some with intelligence?
Your concluding statements are incoherent to me (that may just be my inability to comprehend) but if you want me to look up the arguments of others it means that you are not able to summarize them here. It would be nice if you could state a brief argument here.
LikeLike
February 17, 2012 at 3:31 am
[…] interesting discussion on Intelligent Design’s denigration in the public […]
LikeLike
February 19, 2012 at 11:38 am
I’m not sure denigrate is the right term. Impugn might be more appropriate.
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 10:57 am
Bob you can’t answer my questions or defend your view concerning ID but you still keep attacking it. There seems to be more to your presence here than just dialogue. Are you willing to defend you anti-ID view or are you just going to keep taking pot shots at it?
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Give me a few days to respond. In-laws in town at the moment.
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Bob, no divine intent ,eh? Google lamberth’s naturalistic arguments about God. The teleonomc/atelic alone disposes of supernaturalism as does the ignostic-Ockham and Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism.And the argument from pareidolia discusses how and why supernaturalists find intent and design when only teleonomy-no directed natural processes and patterns exist.
This is not self-promoting but instead promoting mutual understanding so both sides can have their input. @ Amazon Religion Discussion you’ll find by Googling skeptic griggsy arguments for God and arguments about that Him- that square circle. I had other blogs there. None remain, as they are too old.Those two take on many arguments.
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 6:18 pm
In post #62 Griggs, again you inject references to sources that are suposed to “dispose of supernaturatism” etc. I may regret this since you seem to communicate in a way that I find difficult to follow, but can’t you simply state the argument here that you claim refutes ID so that we can discuss it?
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Yes,Danzii, below in the second paragraph from this one.
Lamberth’s teleonomic argument suffices as that answer on its own.So,it’s up to supernaturalists to find evidence for agency-intent behind natural phenomena as no teleological argument gives any evidence but instead relies on personal incredulity that natural causes themselves need no outside input and replies with the argument from ignorance for that agency-intent-directives.
Again, evidence for intent would also overcome the presumption of naturalism. People cannot vouch for agency with the argument from beauty- lo: look around, how do you explain all this without God? I find that science opposes the idea of agency behind natural phenomena: that is the empirical argument I claim refutes I.D.
Dawkins’s revelation is that step-wise -sequentially, natural selection makes for patterns that people see as design per the argument from pareidolia, revealing no divine intent but rather the non-planning, anti- chance agency of evolution called natural selection. And, I claim that to adduce God as still needed contradicts that for obfuscation.
That backwards causation just mocks science! No intent means then that scientists can perform experiments without always getting the same pre-determined results.
And that no divine intent accounts then for evil. Oh, natural causes account for evils and imperfections,despite Plantinga’s sophistry! Selection gave us the big brain, but we ourselves have to determine whether our faculties make for truth-finding! That answers Plantinga’s teleological argument from reason!
No divine intent for ID and reliable faculties exists,in short.
Would that at least someone would start a point by point critique of mine! I am patiently waiting for Bob to comment. Why, he just might want to critique my argumentation,since he is a fellow naturalist,I presume.
Remember that it’s the argument to design instead of from design as that indeed begs the question, but then either way, the question is begged!
All those sources can help people fathom the debate betwixt naturalism and supernaturalism.
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 8:05 am
Bob in post #61 you said: “Give me a few days to respond. In-laws in town at the moment.”
No problem Bob, I look forward to hearing from you next week some time.
I hope you family time is enjoyable. Have a blessed weekend.
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I made an attempt to avoid further divisive exchanges by dropping my list of stinging, tit-for-tat critiques of the IDist arguments that have been presented here so far and, instead, just answered the original question posed at the top of this page (post 46). The response to my posts has been to question my scholastic abilities. That aside, I wish to make amends by first addressing the arguments from authority made above.
I was baffled that Danzil would cite The Plausibility of Life coauthor Marc Kirschner as somehow supporting his arguments. This quote of Kirschner’s was cherry picked from a Boston Globe interview by Peter Dizikes (Missing Links, Boston Globe, October 23, 2005): “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” I assume the point was to somehow make it seem that evolution was largely irrelevant to modern day biology. However, before and after this quote from the interview, Kirschner explains how the understanding of evolutionary biology is rapidly advancing, and further strengthens the theory of evolution, as modern day biologists incorporate evolutionary thinking into their research programs. Dr. Dembski has been kind enough to retain a copy of Dizikes interview for public review:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/we-shouldnt-dismiss-questions-even-if-some-are-ill-intentioned/
In their 2006 review of The Plausibility of Life, CSC fellow Jonathan Wells and Discovery Institute staffer Robert Crowther criticized Gerhart and Kirschner for not providing evidence to support their theory of facilitated variation (which has absolutely nothing to do with ID). Apparently Wells and Crowther didn’t bother to read, or weren’t able to comprehend, the literature references posted on Dr. Kirschner’s research group homepage.
Danzil’s citation of Dr. Wilkins comment from 2000 about how “most (biologists) can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas” is likewise taken out of context. This quote was also cherry picked. One needs to read the next paragraph and the ones after that to get a true sense of Dr. Wilkins essay about the ever growing application of evolutionary thinking to biology questions. The reference is BioEssays, Volume 22, pages 1051-1052 (pdf available online). Discovery Institute fellow Jonathan Witt similarly cherry picked Dr. Wilkins “superfluous” comment from this same essay in an effort to support his (Witt’s) claim that Darwinists are confused about the theory of evolution and are trying to suppress dissenting ID views. If you would like to know what Dr. Wilkins really thinks, I suggest BioEssays, Volume 28, pages 327-328 (also online as a pdf), in which he uses words like misleading, dishonest and irrational to describe the ID movement.
My original comment (post 6) about the rewriting of Of Pandas and People in order to hide the creation science religious underpinning of ID after Edwards v. Aguillard brought forth comments about the foul play used by evolutionists to secure their Kitzmiller victory and the need for me to read Casey Luskin’s response on the Discovery Institute website. I offer here Dr. Forrest’s comments about her Of Pandas and People Kitzmiller testimony in which she states: “All pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas (there were at least five) were written using creationist terminology. The earliest drafts had overtly creationist titles. In 1987 the title was changed to Of Pandas and People, and there were two 1987 drafts. One was written in creationist language. In the other, creationist terminology had been replaced by “intelligent design” and other design-related terms, suggesting that the Edwards decision prompted this change. The clincher was a new footnote in the latter draft explicitly referencing Edwards, indicating that this draft was produced after the June 19, 1987, decision in an effort to evade the ruling.”
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/vise_strategy_undone_kitzmiller_et_al._v._dover_area_school_district
I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if Forrest altered the evidence she produced at trial and then lied under oath or if Luskin is telling the truth, the partial truth and only his version of the truth.
Finally, to the point about wanting to expel God from science, there is no need. He hasn’t been there since the Age of Enlightenment nor should He be (post 46). If the arguments which have been presented above in support of ID are an example of what will pass as legitimate scientific debate when God makes His return to science, I’m glad I retired. The lesson here is to not take any published commentary about evolution or ID at face value. Check the credentials of the commentator, the credentials of the person being written about or the work he or she is doing and then go to the primary literature and read the actual documents being quoted. There are zealots on both sides of the debate and one needs to be aware of the potential for cherry picking quotes to make claims which are in fact the polar opposite of the author’s original intent.
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Bob,indeed.
Skeptics take into accont the total evidence whilst creationists, Holocaust and climate change deniers cherry pick and just lie.
The total evidence is for evolution whilst evidence can swing from one theory to another as far as the weight of its component theories. How do genetic drift and such and mutations rank with special selection. The evidence can strengthen or lessen theories but never will it dispute evolution itself as it has overwhelming empirical support.
Evolutionists themselves found the hoaxes whilst creationists just lie about them as contradicting evolution and make up their own like the Pauluxy tracks and the bombadier beetle.Creatonists don’t consider the implications of their mere assertions.ID’ers do the same.
Darwinian step-wise produces new living forms whilst irreducible complexity kicks logic around.
Science could in principle allow Him back in were there evidence to bring Him in per IMN as opposed to PMN. WEIT put out information about both forms of methodological naturalism, but I no longer have it in my favorites.
Bob, theistic evolutionists find divine intent from their faith,not from science, as Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson note implicitly in ” What Evolution Is” and “Life of the Planet, respectively. That’s why the teleonomic/atelic argument is important.
And, Bob, I invite you and others here to post at any of blogs. I reblog from here and elsewhere articles. It is up to others to say yea or nay in part or in full here and there.
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
I found the information on IMN vs.PMN @ http:/naturalistgriggsy.posterous.com and @ WEIT on Sept, 22,2010.
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm
http://naturalistgriggsy.posterous.com
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 9:40 pm
That’s Oct 12,2011
Articles there implicitly explain why the teleonomic/atelic argument rings true.
Whilst i favor PMN, I find that on the other hand that my ignosticism would still preclude Him as lacking referents and otherwise! For the sake of argument, and since ignosticism might fail to persuade others, I do find PMN truer nevertheless. However, even so, still no evidence comes forth even for that!
Bob, which do you favor. Maarten Boudry, Dutch philosopher of science, advocates PMN.
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 9:43 pm
It’s necessary to click reader at right top of page. I don’t know why posterous fails to put the archive on that page itself.
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 9:42 am
In my previous post I failed to address the questions raised above about the debate on the scientific validity of ID versus evolution. I appreciate the back and forth in the above exchanges, but, and no offense, I think they miss the point. As I have stated before, I don’t consider ID to be science as it is based on the God hypothesis. Thus, there is no basis for a comparative debate about the scientific merits of ID and evolution. As I see it, the “debate” is making ID acceptable for secondary school science education by debasing the scientific foundations of evolution. Only by convincing legislators and boards of education that evolution is somehow a lie can the IDists hope to get ID accepted into the school science curriculum.
I freely admit to not having done any biology related research during my past employment and thus have to accept an argument from authority to choose whom to believe most presents the truth about evolution. Almost every scientist who has or had an active research program in some area related to evolution and has written a book, article, editorial or essay on the subject has stated that evolution is essential to understanding current biology research and that same research further strengthens the theory of evolution rather than weakens it. It thus comes down to whom do I trust? Do I accept the word of Johnson, Behe, Luskin, Witt, Wells, Crowther and the other writers at the Discovery Institute that evolution is beyond human comprehension? Or do I go with current and past evolution researchers Miller, Dawkins, Gerhart and Kirschner, Gould, Wilkins and Ayala? I’ve chosen the latter group to guide my understanding of evolution. I find the former group’s writings to often be misleading characterizations of older science. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them liars. Lying would assume they deliberately distort known facts; another explanation is that they are simply ignorant of the facts of current research. But, that’s just me. I am quite sure there are others reading and writing here who will argue the exact opposite. They will only be convinced of the validity of evolution when some future lab scientist reverses the course of evolution once again and turns a whale embryo back into a baby hippo. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, so the “debate” will likely continue.
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
Bob, I find them to be liars as they knowingly distort the facts. The know that they take things out of context. They know the current research but prefer to distort it.
Not only I.D.ers and creationist misunderstand and misrepresent evolution,even some of its foremost practitioners like Ayala and Miller fail to grant it its full powers,by obfuscating with God as part of the evolutionary process whether directly or as the Primary Cause and Prime Mover as [ Google:] the teleonomic/atelic argument illustrates.
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 11:28 am
Carneses, welcome to our dialogue.
First, I’m sure you can appreciate the importance of clarity in such discussions so please let’s aim for crystal clarity in our communication so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding. If you use words like “pareidolia”, “obfuscation”, “plantinga”, “teleological” or refer to popular arguments like “Lamberth’s teleonomic argument”, it would be helpful if you could provide a brief definition or provide a link where a “brief” definition “that you agree with” can be found. This will enable our readers to follow our dialogue and again will minimize misunderstanding. As I have seen varying views (some of which were incoherent), I don’t want to address the wrong aspect or interpretation of any.
In line with my request can you please state your first paragraph in more simple language for clarity on your point? You said:
“Lamberth’s teleonomic argument suffices as that answer on its own. So, it’s up to supernaturalists to find evidence for agency-intent behind natural phenomena as no teleological argument gives any evidence but instead relies on personal incredulity that natural causes themselves need no outside input and replies with the argument from ignorance for that agency-intent-directives.”
Are you saying that super-naturalists argue from ignorance because they acknowledge agency-intent behind “natural phenomena”?
You said:
“People cannot vouch for agency with the argument from beauty- lo: look around, how do you explain all this without God?”
Here you jump the gun as you seem to do several times in an apparent attempt to anticipate my rebuttal. I suggest that we take this step by step so as not to waste time on arguments I have not and may not raise. I am not addressing religion here but science, my question is and was a scientific one.
You said:
“No intent means then that scientists can perform experiments without always getting the same pre-determined results.”
Again I am not clear on your point here, are referring to guess work or logical correct “pre-determined” results”.
You said:
“I find that science opposes the idea of agency behind natural phenomena: that is the empirical argument I claim refutes I.D.”
Assuming you are referring to empirical science, in what way does it “oppose” the idea of agency behind natural phenomena?
Thanks
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Bob you said in post 66:
“The response to my posts has been to question my scholastic abilities.”
I don’t recall questioning your scholastic abilities, I simply pointed out where you failed to pay attention to detail.
You said:
“I was baffled that Danzil would cite The Plausibility of Life coauthor Marc Kirschner as somehow supporting his arguments.”
Once again you have failed to pay attention to details, my use of Marc Kirschner was not to support my “arguments” but “argument”. And it was posted in response to a question.
“Where exists any citation that evolutionists don’t use evolution in scientific research?”
The quote used was:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has preceded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, Biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all.”
Your “cherry picked” accusation is typical of evolutions attempting to direct attention away from the issue and that term is commonly used whenever a creationists or ID defender quotes evolutionist.
You said;
“I assume the point was to somehow make it seem that evolution was largely irrelevant to modern day biology.”
The fact is that it is irrelevant and that is why evolutionists must inject into biology and just about every other branch of science, to make it seem relevant.
You said:
“However, before and after this quote from the interview, Kirschner explains how the understanding of evolutionary biology is rapidly advancing, and further strengthens the theory of evolution, as modern day biologists incorporate evolutionary thinking into their research programs.”
But how does that make my use of the quote “out of context”?
Whether the understanding of evolutionary biology was advancing now was not the issue. The issue was its relevance in science research over the last 100 years. It clearly was not as significant as evolutionists have tried to make it seem.
Here is a classic example of how evolutionists accuse creationists who quote evolutionists of “quote-mining” or “cherry picking” just about any time a creationist quotes anybody but especially when we quote evolutionists.
They usually accuse us of mis-quoting or mis-representing what was actually said and they often accomplish this by focusing on another part of the document that the quote does not include and claiming that the part quoted was mined to give a different point from what the author intended.
While this is true in some cases, it is not true in most. Yet I have found in my own experience that evolutionists often apply this accusation far more often than justified. This is one of those incidents.
Nothing that you stated here negates that Kirschner acknowledged that fact.
You then inject a paragraph about Jonathan Wells and Robert Crowther and their criticism of Gerhart and Kirschner which I did not mention and which deals with something other than my point.
You said:
“Danzil’s citation of Dr. Wilkins comment from 2000 about how “most (biologists) can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas” is likewise taken out of context.”
Again your accusation needs to be defended and you have not done so by your following statement:
“This quote was also cherry picked. One needs to read the next paragraph and the ones after that to get a true sense of Dr. Wilkins essay about the ever growing application of evolutionary thinking to biology questions.”
This does not negate my point, so why do you state this? It is almost as if you are just finding counter arguments on a “Talk Origins” type site and applying then to any ID or Creationists who quotes that Dr. Wilkins passage. I have encountered this often as well.
My purpose for using the quote was not to give Dr. Wilkins perspective on the growing application of evolutionary thinking to biology questions, but to point out that even evolutionists admit that they conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.
Your statement about your #6 post and my reply was not the main issue here so why do you keep going back to the Dover trial?
You said:
“I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if Forrest altered the evidence she produced at trial and then lied under oath or if Luskin is telling the truth, the partial truth and only his version of the truth.”
So far you have been quite selective about which of my questions you answered here, avoiding the main questions concerning evolution and ID.
Your concluding remarks said nothing in actual defense of you evolution and against ID.
I see you have made an attempt in post 72 so I will reply to that.
LikeLike
March 4, 2012 at 10:29 am
Bob, in post #66 you said that I questioned your scholarship but you did not refer to the post so I was unable to follow you comment. After reviewing the posts I remembered that on post #35 I did say your research “SEEMED” to be bad because of your constant reference to the Kitzmiller V. Dover case because you failed to take into account the Discovery Institute’s report on the case. Additionally, your constant reference to the Wedge Document which has nothing to do with the validity of ID as science indicated an agenda other than dialogue about ID.
LikeLike
March 4, 2012 at 10:38 am
Carneades, it seems that you are Griggs, if so then please excuse my welcome as it was not clear that you was Griggs. Do you have any other post names that I should be aware of?
LikeLike
March 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Bob you said in post 72:
“As I have stated before, I don’t consider ID to be science as it is based on the God hypothesis. Thus, there is no basis for a comparative debate about the scientific merits of ID and evolution.”
This does not explain why ID is not science; it simply rejects ID as science because its conclusions require an intelligent source. That is not an argument
You said:
“As I see it, the “debate” is making ID acceptable for secondary school science education by debasing the scientific foundations of evolution.”
My question has be, “What are the scientific foundations of evolution?”
ID does not need to “debase” evolution as there is little about evolution that is “science”. The amount of storytelling and assumptions involved in keeping evolution afloat is nothing short of diabolical. The bait and switch policy of evolutionists when discussing evolution “evidence” is common knowledge. You act as if nothing in ID makes any since and that there is plenty of evidence proving evolution, neither of which is the case.
You said:
“Only by convincing legislators and boards of education that evolution is somehow a lie can the IDists hope to get ID accepted into the school science curriculum.”
Since you keep injecting the “ID in schools” issue, you should be aware that ID has just as much right to be taught in schools as evolution has, in fact more rights since evolution rest on non-science. You should also know that there are aspects of evolution that are indeed a lie and that’s a fact. 1. Evolution has no beginning since nonlife cannot beget life. 2. One kind of creature evolving into another kind of creature has never been observed, but we do observe all kinds reproducing after their kind. 3. The programed information clearly evident in all life on the molecular level defies evolution no matter how evolutionists try to confuse the issue.
You said:
“I freely admit to not having done any biology related research during my past employment and thus have to accept an argument from authority to choose whom to believe most presents the truth about evolution.”
And that is commendable; however, your method of determining who is telling the truth and your reason for your concluding decision must be examined. Your next comment addressing what appears to be how you came to your conclusion is suspect.
You said:
“Almost every scientist who has or had an active research program in some area related to evolution and has written a book, article, editorial or essay on the subject has stated that evolution is essential to understanding current biology research and that same research further strengthens the theory of evolution rather than weakens it.”
But you have not indicated their possible motivations or presuppositions, nor have you even indicated that there is the possibility of unscientific bias motivated by a variety of benefits.
On the one hand you seem to be suggesting that because the “majority” of scientists accept evolution that they must be correct. That is not logical as history demonstrates.
On the other hand you have not even mentioned in your above point the many brilliant counter arguments from the ID or creation science communities, which indicate that you have a preference toward evolution, based more on majority than on the data itself.
Your next comment was revealing in which you lists names on two sides of the debate.
You have dropped names on at least two sides of the debate which really say nothing since there are others involved. Additionally, your point says nothing about the scientific reasons that you chose the side of evolutionists against ID.
You seem to be avoiding the one thing that can settle this whole matter and that is the data itself. If you have put your trust in the evolutionists who deny ID then you should at least be able to give us the documented reasons that you do so. What evidence has any of your champions listed presented that proves evolution (changes from one kind to another) is true, that non-life begets life, that complexity on the scale that we see it on the molecular level is accidental or by chance or whatever other term you wish to use? Etc. until we address the actual data we are wasting time.
You said:
“I am quite sure there are others reading and writing here who will argue the exact opposite. They will only be convinced of the validity of evolution when some future lab scientist reverses the course of evolution once again and turns a whale embryo back into a baby hippo. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, so the “debate” will likely continue.”
But that is not necessary to prove evolution, has it ever occurred to you that evolution has to rely on a time frame that prevents anyone from seeing evolution actually take place? That the strength of evolution lies in the ability of the evolutionists to tell stories about what must have happened? While at the same time explaining away what we actually see happening in life and nature?
That is what causes me to conclude that there is more to this discussion than science. There is a world view battle at the center of this and scientific facts don’t seem to be that important to evolutionists since they can make up stories and people just believer them.
How do you deal with comments like the following by evolutionists?
DR. PAUL DAVIES
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows”
(New Scientist. Vol. 163:2204 (1999) p. 27-30.
JOSEPH THORNTON AND BOB DESALLE
“It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinary diverse and well optimized function”
(Gene Family Evolution and Homology Genomios Meets Phylogenetios” Annual Review of Genomios and Human Genetios 1 (2000): 64.
ERIC BAPTESTE
“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life;…..A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.
We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”
(Graham Lawton, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree” New Scientist, Jan. 24, 2009, pg. 34.
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm
I had prepared a lengthy response (3 pages long), but countering out of context, cherry picked comments is a worthless exercise. It isn’t my job to defend evolution. Whether you like it or not, evolution is the established paradigm in biological science. It is the IDists job to provide an acceptable scientific alternative, something which they so far have failed (miserably) to do. I will simply offer these instead:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/10/15/the-blind-locksmith-continued-an-update-from-joe-thornton/
http://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-tree-life-2009feb7.htm
I will comment on one area, however. Belittling the importance of science education, the Wedge document and constitutional law to the debate seems to me to be less than disingenuous. If these are so unimportant, why go to all of the trouble to debase evolution in the first place? As service to humanity, to rid the world of the evils of Darwinism? And then replace it with what? ID, maybe? To readers who want to know what is really going on behind the scenes, I recommend Ken Miller’s Only a Theory and Forrest and Gross’ Creationism Trojan Horse. Miller’s book is an easy, weekend read and provides an excellent summary of why all of this “debate” is occurring in the first place. Forrest has more detail, but her rhetoric is harsher and more sarcastic than necessary. For a good historical perspective, to put it all in context, I suggest Ron Numbers’ The Creationists, second edition. Finally, to get a better understanding of current evolution research, stop reading Jonathan Wells and start reading articles on the research being done by Wells’ critics.
We seem to have reached a state of diminishing returns in this discussion. Additional exchanges would thus appear to be pointless. Unless someone else has something new to add, I’ll be deleting the link to this page from the Evolution folder in my Favorites file.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Bob you said in post 79:
“I had prepared a lengthy response (3 pages long), but countering out of context, cherry picked comments is a worthless exercise.”
Why am I not surprised? You have made this kind of statement quite a few times in this thread; I would think that you would have avoided using the same excuse to at least give the impression that you could defend your views but I guess I should not blame you since evolution is indefensible.
You said:
“It isn’t my job to defend evolution.”
Then why are you posting here? If you are not willing to “defend” your views then perhaps you should fine a less demanding blog to play in.
You said:
“Whether you like it or not, evolution is the established paradigm in biological science. It is the IDists job to provide an acceptable scientific alternative, something which they so far have failed (miserably) to do.”
But evolution is not the established paradigm in biological science, it is “claimed” to be so by evolutionist who have “hijacked” science and tacked their interpretations and stories on to it.
The history of how evolution became the “accepted” standard among evolutionists and how the public has been tricked into believing the false claims of evolution can be easily accessed if you really wanted to understand how evolution became so well “accepted”.
As for ID’s “failure” to provide an alternative, you fail to realize that if ID is correct, there may well be no “naturalist” alternative. The absence of a naturalistic ID alternative does not necessitate a false evolution alternative. Such arguments are illogical but often relied on by atheist evolutionists who know full well that their view is not scientific.
You said:
“I will simply offer these instead:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/10/15/the-blind-locksmith-continued-an-update-from-joe-thornton/”
I noticed this statement in the article:
“He does so by figuring out what the molecules were like in the distant past and recreating those ancestral forms in his lab to see how they worked.”
Bob, do you know how he determined what molecules were like in the distant past, millions of years ago? Do you really think that anyone today can provide such information having not lived in that time? If so, why? Why do you accept that an evolutionist can tell you so much about the distant past but God who was there cannot tell you anything about that period?
Have you even read Michael Behe’s comments? Behe is an evolutionist and he does not agree with key evolutionists claims. But this is not even the issue, the issue is why do you believe evolution and reject ID? You seem to be content to trust atheist evolutionist and not think this through for yourself. I am asking why? I don’t think your reason is scientific, I think it is moral and spiritual.
Your link to the article “News of the Death of the Tree of Life Has Been Greatly Exaggerated” Simply shows the confusion among scientists about the claims of Darwin, what do it have to do with proving evolution or disproving ID?
You said:
“I will comment on one area, however. Belittling the importance of science education, the Wedge document and constitutional law to the debate seems to me to be less than disingenuous.”
Perhaps you can point out where I “belittled the importance of those things”.
I never belittled the importance of science education, I did insist that evolution is not science and hinders science education. I did not belittle the importance of the Wedge document but suggested that your obsession with it was uncalled for and did not answer the arguments against evolution and for ID. I did not belittle the constitution law and I doubt if you even understand it. I doubt if you can explain “Separation of church and State”.
You then said:
“If these are so unimportant, why go to all of the trouble to debase evolution in the first place?”
Note the error of your comment in light of what I said, since I never indicated they were “unimportant” your comments are illogical and even more so since none of those thing have anything to do with whether evolution is true or not. Are you so lost in your defense of evolution that you are unable to think logically?
You said:
“To readers who want to know what is really going on behind the scenes, I recommend Ken Miller’s Only a Theory and Forrest and Gross’ Creationism Trojan Horse.”
I can easily post links to reviews of those books that point out their fallacies but what does that tell us about your ability to defend evolution or refute ID here.
http://creation.com/review-kenneth-miller-only-a-theory
Click to access j24_3_15-18.pdf
You said:
“For a good historical perspective, to put it all in context, I suggest Ron Numbers’ The Creationists, second edition.”
Ron Numbers went from agnostic to atheist and is hardly a source of honest reporting on the creationist’s movement. He attacked Dr. Jerry Bergman in the book but failed to respond to Dr. Bergman’s reply even though his book has gone through updates. He does not seem to be interested in getting to the truth but only in discrediting creationists. Since you are obviously not interested in checking the validity of your source, I would be happy to contact Dr. Bergman for the particulars if you wish. But again, why are you not able to defend YOUR reason for accepting evolution and rejecting ID here?
You said:
“Finally, to get a better understanding of current evolution research, stop reading Jonathan Wells and start reading articles on the research being done by Wells’ critics.”
But I have not read Well and do not rely on him for my information thought I think he is more correct than your sources.
You concluded with:
“We seem to have reached a state of diminishing returns in this discussion. Additional exchanges would thus appear to be pointless. Unless someone else has something new to add, I’ll be deleting the link to this page from the Evolution folder in my Favorites file.”
I am not surprised that you wish to bow out. The fact is that you are not able to defend your reasons for believing evolution or reasons for rejecting ID. You seem to want to believe that evolution is true and ID false and I suspect it is because of your moral convictions. You no doubt are not comfortable with the Christian world view and thus must hold on to anything that will give you less reason be concerned about your moral state. However, no matter how much you reject the truth for a lie, you are accountable for you actions.
You should know that God loves you and He has demonstrated that love by providing salvation for you through Jesus Christ. (John 3:16) and that there is no other way to receive salvation accept through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).
Since we will no longer be dialoging, please let me take this time to thank you for your efforts and to ask you to forgive anything that I may have said that unintentionally offended you. I naturally respect your right to believe what you wish but I am compelled to share what I perceive to be true because of the love that God has for you.
It is my prayer that someday soon you will come to understand and accept the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ if you have not already done so.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
For those interested, Michale Behe has responded to Joe Thornton in the following links:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/probability_and_controversy_re027491.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_english_translation_of_new051661.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/wheel_of_fortune_new_work_by_t051621.html
LikeLike
April 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“Ape, (there’s nothing human about Apes)”
Humans are apes. We are one of the Great Ape species, as are chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. This is a basic scientific fact you can find in any encyclopedia. Look it up.
“… and so you shift the focus on the designer to avoid dealing with the ramifications of the design?”
Translation:
“… and so you shift the focus on the MAGIC MAN to avoid dealing with the ramifications of the MAGIC?”
Calling magic “design” doesn’t make it any less childish. Your use of the word “design” instead of what you’re really taking about, “magic”, you makes you look like a liar.
LikeLike
April 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm
“Creationists don’t understand science” which would indicate no creationists including those with science degrees from reputable universities, and “every scientist who has ever heard of….Bill Dembski agrees he’s a liar and an idiot”, which would include all creationists and ID scientists who agree with and support Dembski, and “evolution..it’s the strongest fact of science”, which would make evolutionists who say that nothing in science can be called a fact, liars?
It’s amazing how you science deniers can get so much wrong in one paragraph.
ID scientists? Since when did real scientists invoke magic (or what you dishonestly call ID as if calling magic by another name makes it less stupid)?
Evolutionists who say that nothing in science can be called a fact?
Where did you get that dishonest nonsense? Ask any biologist about evolution. They will call it a FACT. Look it up.
And biologists are called “biologists”, not “evolutionists”. Why don’t you practice saying “biologists” a few times to help you understand.
Ask the best encyclopedia in the world about evolution.
“There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.”
— Encyclopedia Britannica
Ask any real biologist about Dembski, and by “real” I mean biologists who don’t invoke magic like you do, and by “real” I mean biologists who have contributed something important to biology. They all say, every single one of them who has heard about Dembski, is he is a pathological liar for the Magic Jeebus Man. Even the extremely rare religious biologists call Dembski an idiot. Look it up.
Look it mister. I’m going to be honest. You, sir, are an uneducated moron. You spend so much time denying evolution you have never bothered to understand what it is you’re denying. You’re dishonest about science, and even more amazing you’re dishonest about your own childish idiotic fantasies.
At least the Bible thumpers, as stupid as they are, are honest about their magical creationism. You, however, dishonestly call your magic fantasy “design”. That makes you as stupid as the thumpers but you’re dishonest about it. If you can’t grow up, educate yourself, and face facts (and it’s obvious you can’t do that) at least try to stop lying about your own fantasies.
“You should know that God loves you and He has demonstrated that love by providing salvation for you through Jesus Christ. (John 3:16) and that there is no other way to receive salvation accept through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).”
Good grief, you are a bible thumper. Amazing. You’re a dishonest Bible thumper. You even invoke the Magic Jeebus Man. And you believe in salvation, also known as a magical heaven. You’re so terrified of reality you wish for a life after death as do the suicide bombers.
I’m done here. Get psychiatric help mister. You’re not just stupid. You’re not just uneducated. You’re batshit crazy.
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 8:21 pm
“Ape” you said in post 82
“Humans are apes. We are one of the Great Ape species, as are chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. This is a basic scientific fact you can find in any encyclopedia. Look it up.”
Perhaps you could be so kind as to reference a particular “encyclopedia” and the actual statement there in that scientifically proves your point. I doubt that you will since you know that such comments are false science. So why play games, if you are so sure of your monkey status I will hardly argue that but I would be dishonest to say that I am a monkey. I will accept that you are a monkey but I ask that you prove that you know what you are talking about.
As for your insistence that ID is magic and not science, I accuse you of silly game playing and foolish talk because you know full well you can’t defend your voodoo science.
You sir are an atheist in rebellion against the God who created you. That is the fact.
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“Ape”, in reply to your post 83 I can only say thank you for making my point, you are not only irrational but spiritually deprived. You have no personal knowledge or ability to defend evolution, only the drive to avoid the truth about your creation by the creator. You are no doubt empty and you detest anyone who would dare to point out your depravity. Dembski is clearly doing a commendable job to have so many of you group up tight. It is frustrating I guess to have your “science” game exposed. Your rant is evidence that you have lost. I know what the many textbooks and encyclopedias say and you should know that following the leading party line of those who are in control of academia does not prove scientific credibility.
You seem to have carefully shielded yourself from the many scientific facts that are exposing the fallacy of evolution as well as the shamble that science is in today as a result of the games being played those atheist, evolutionists who are desperately trying to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes on. Your mistake was in publicly trying to defend evolution in a forum that you cannot erase. I guess arrogance does that to some people; it makes them think they can silence anyone by just winging it with rhetoric. I am happy to disappoint you.
It does not surprise me that you are leaving our little dialogue. But I am surprised that you would not even try to defend your religion. You just make statements and tell me to “look it up”. You call people names and you name drop and think you have given an intelligent response. As I have said, in spite of your rebellion, God does love you and I am sure the people here who know and serve Jesus Christ including myself, are praying for you.
LikeLike
May 27, 2012 at 11:59 am
For those here who are Christians, we really need to pray for “Ape” whose mental convictions that he is an ape is clearly influencing not only his thinking but his actions as well. Such people who are angry at a God that they claim does not exist, are angry because they don’t like the idea of being held accountable for their moral and spiritual activity. Irrational thinking, talking and actions are common among them. They seek to provoke us believers to shame by calling us names because they know they are unable to refute our arguments. When that false they seek to at least get us to conduct ourselves as ill-mannered as they so that their own ill-manners will seem normal and acceptable. So please do not respond in kind, don’t help them to feel comfortable in their rudeness. While evolution cannot turn an ape into a man, God can turn “Ape” into a respectable, loving human being.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm
ID is not a scientific explanation of the observed natural world, the cosmos, as it is not testable. Neither the Intelligent Designer nor His/Its working has ever been observed, or recognized (we see atoms but do not recognize them as distinct particles).
Neither is Evolution a scientific explanation of the observed cosmos as it is not testable.
Both Creation (ID) and Evolution are philosophical, not scientific, in nature.
This seems to have to be pointed out over and over.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Mac, you’ve proven your parroting skills are great. Perhaps you would like to interact with any of the ID arguments for the scientific nature of its discipline (empirical-based, testable, makes predictions, etc.), and show why those claims are mistaken.
Jason
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Please notice that those who cannot defend their position soon resort to ad hominem attacks:
“… real scientists …” – infers that those who do not agree with his Evolutionist philosophy are not real scientists.
“… stupid …” infers that those who express ideas he thinks stupid must be stupid themselves.
“… dishonest …”
“… nonsense …”
“… Ask any biologist about evolution. They will call it a FACT.” – infers that any biologist, no matter what credentials (s)he has, how many degrees, how prestigious his(her) reputation, if (s)he does not agree with his philosophy (s)he is not a “real” biologist. “Look it up.” Yeah, yeah. And when we look up the many biologists who are not True-Believers in Evolutionism, they are “stupid” and should be ignored as if they were not stupid they would be Evolution True-Believers, not heretics.
“And biologists are called ‘biologists,’ not ‘evolutionists.’ Why don’t you practice saying ‘biologists’ a few times to help you understand.”
What nonsense. Biologists are not Evolutionists by virtue of being biologists, nor are biologists inherently Evolutionists.”
“Ask the best encyclopedia in the world about evolution.”
What is the “best encyclopedia in the world?” Of course it must present Evolution as proven fact or it must not be the best encyclopedia!
Is Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world? It certainly is the largest, has the most articles and the most words. However, it is not directly citable as authority as it may be changed anywhere at any time. If one does cite Wikipedia it is to reference its sources.
Wikipedia’s article on Evolution (as of 06/12/2012 at about 18:19 ET) starts out well by defining the term.
However, it then progresses into:
“Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.”
This is pure speculation. No one was present to record if there was an earth 3.7 billion years ago.
“Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from …”
Yeah, “can be inferred.” Practically anything anyone wants to infer can be inferred from “shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.”
“… universal common ancestor …” is the wildest speculation. The term “common ancestor” has no application outside genetically common families of organisms that can interbreed and reproduce.
“… vestigial leg bones …” A totally debunked theory of the small bones present toward the tail of some types of whales. They are not leg bones at all, vestigial or not, but have to do with positioning the genitals for copulation.
“… while c indicates vestigial leg bones, suggesting an adaptation from land to sea.”
As the premise has been rejected, the “suggestion” is done away.
“There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.”
– Encyclopedia Britannica
Pure speculation masquerading as “fact.” Printing words in a thick book does not prove them correct. This sort of verbiage tends only to generate doubt in the reliability of the encyclopedia. Yes, the “notion” has been extensively tested. Unfortunately for this bare assertion following, the origin of organisms (actually of the first organism) is totally unknown in science as there was no one there to observe and no such instance has been observed (even dispensing with the “first” qualifier).
“Ask any real biologist about Dembski, and by ‘real’ I mean biologists who don’t invoke magic like you do, and by ‘real’ I mean biologists who have contributed something important to biology. They all say, every single one of them who has heard about Dembski, is he is a pathological liar for the Magic Jeebus Man. Even the extremely rare religious biologists call Dembski an idiot. Look it up.”
They resort to calling names and insulting those who they regard as “heretics.” Wm. Dembski does not present himself as a biologist but as a philosopher, mathematician, and theologian (religious philosopher). While a mathematician may be regarded as a scientist, generally they are not included in the category “scientist.” As I mentioned, ID is a philosophical, not a scientific, concept.
“Look it mister. I’m going to be honest. You, sir, are an uneducated moron.”
Apparently “Human Ape” considers himself a mental health authority. “Morons” (a lay term abandoned by “real” mental health professionals decades ago) are not capable of becoming serious mathematicians.
Just more ad hominem attacking from one who appears incompetent to defend his quasi-religious philosophy of Evolutionism.
“You spend so much time denying evolution you have never bothered to understand what it is you’re denying. You’re dishonest about science, and even more amazing you’re dishonest about your own childish idiotic fantasies.”
Ad hominem attack #?
“At least the Bible thumpers, as stupid as they are, are honest about their magical creationism. You, however, dishonestly call your magic fantasy ‘design’. That makes you as stupid as the thumpers but you’re dishonest about it. If you can’t grow up, educate yourself, and face facts (and it’s obvious you can’t do that) at least try to stop lying about your own fantasies.”
One True-Believer in the magic fantasy of Evolutionism sparring with True-Believers in another supernaturalistic philosophy. Will the two camps ever get tired of their jousting?
“Good grief, you are a bible thumper. Amazing. You’re a dishonest Bible thumper. You even invoke the Magic Jeebus Man. And you believe in salvation, also known as a magical heaven. You’re so terrified of reality you wish for a life after death as do the suicide bombers.”
“I’m done here. Get psychiatric help mister. You’re not just stupid. You’re not just uneducated. You’re batshit crazy.”
Excellent. THREE ad hominem attacks in one short paragraph! Perhaps “Human Ape” is incompetent to defend his belief (or perhaps he hasn’t been generous enough to share that talent with us yet), but he is a master of slurring.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 11:46 pm
“whose mental convictions that he is an ape is clearly influencing not only his thinking but his actions as well.”
Danzil it’s a basic fact that humans are apes, In the same way eagles are birds and lions are cats. Would you deny that you are a mammal or vertebrate?
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 11:48 pm
“Neither is Evolution a scientific explanation of the observed cosmos as it is not testable.”
Um, yes it is. Someone just hasn’t been looking.
LikeLike
January 22, 2013 at 10:18 pm
I blog likewise and I’m publishing a little something comparable to this article,
“If Intelligent Design is Science, Why Do So Many Scientists and Scientific Institutions
Denounce It? Theo-sophical Ruminations”. Will you care if Iapply a lot of of your ideas?
Thank you -Sheila
LikeLike
January 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm
No, not at all. Just offer any citations where appropriate.
Jason
LikeLike
March 4, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Jason
Have you been able to watch the Nye vs Ham debate? I’m curious if you will do a review of some of the content?
LikeLike
March 8, 2014 at 2:47 pm
“Danzil it’s a basic fact that humans are apes, In the same way eagles are birds and lions are cats. Would you deny that you are a mammal or vertebrate?”
Wayne, I acknowledge that scientists have established criteria and category that they place humans and apes in called mammal, but that does not make humans apes. Categories can be manipulated to incorporate anything. Humans have never been apes or apes humans. Neither do we share a common ancestor.
LikeLike
October 16, 2015 at 9:23 am
To say creationism and ID is same thing is to group all theist as creationists which is ignorant and prejudice in itself. There are so many different religions, and so many different sects within any one religion to try to attempt to group them all in the same category and try to discredit them collectively. It is impossible to discredit every theistic beleif, you would have to go to every single person on the earth (7 billion) and purpose a scientific test to prove or disapprove their personal beleif. However I don’t agree ID should have a place in any public science class as you can not tailor the information to every student’s individual beleif and is unethical. However I don’t agree with any scientist, professor, or any accredited professional to incorporate a stance of their view of ID in their lectures or literature. Identifying as an atheistic evolutionist is still incorporating a stance on religion and/or god(s) into your scientific information, even if your stance is that their isn’t one. Simply put, your viewpoint on religion/god(s) doesn’t belong there. Likewise to say ID ISN’T agnostic and is theism is to claim that you fully understand every single human being’s viewpoint on what their idea of what an intellegent being means. Intellegent to some is simply consciousness which is something the scientific community still doesn’t understand fully as of today, so they should NOT make a comment on it without evidence. So I completely agree, keep religion out of science COMPLETELY AND FULLY, which includes identifying as an atheist along with identifying as theist.
LikeLike
October 16, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Marco:
To say that one is an atheistic evolutionist is to say that one is an evolutionist based purely on science; that is, science not contaminated by religious belief or tainted by beliefs of tradition, social or cultural values by virtue of the beliefs of the ancestors whether they believed in sacrificing children to the caricature god concepts, the golden idols of calves, women, men or cherubim. In other words without a belief system interfering with anything other than what the science reveals.
I am fine with atheistic evolution because atheism is not a belief system.. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not synonyms necessarily but theists use them interchangeably in their belief systems.
We have only to look at plant life to see certain intelligence operating like the tentacles of climbing plants in the garden like peas and beans that grow upwards toward the light, whereas cucumbers and squash crawl along the ground in lines; beets and potatoes grow underground and cabbage and lettuce grow where they sprout. Why? Water finds its own level and makes its own roadways, we call that process the path of least resistance. Maybe we could call it liquid intelligence looking for the Mother of all oceans.
One can discredit the population without going to coalesce like the herd mentality small herds of cultist or massive herds like Christians and Muslim. One Herd Group could sum them all up as a herd of Supernatural Superstitious Miraculous Magical Fantasyists….Atheism believes in none it. Let it then be known as such.
Ignorance means lack of knowledge or information; that is what belief systems identify its constituents as being and that is the way all religions operate; science acts only on the belief that knowledge will be had by asking, seeking, knocking, finding and proving. If religion operated that way there would be no religions left on earth, religion is sacrificed on the altar of science by knowledge. Knowledge is the anathema of religion.
LikeLike