With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Apparently I did hit a nerve, yes...
Honest scientist
You are missing the point, the ad hominem is not that I did not understand your argument, I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID, you may have come to that conclusion. Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
--Island--
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?...
---
A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous.
--Island--
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
---
I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents.
--Island--
Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
--
Where did we see God standing over the victim? The reason science does not give equal time to ID is because it presents nothing scientifically relevant, it's really that simple. Call it 'reactionary' or 'old fashioned' that scientists insists on something scientifically relevant.
Remember, design always remains a possibility, even when science manages to explain the supposedly 'designed' features, such is the nature of theology versus science. However, agency is never truly of the table, scientifically speaking, as ID very well realizes when it comes to historical sciences. So how come that, unlike these historical sciences, ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nope
PvM stated:
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
- island September 10, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design is always a theoretical possibility
--I wrote: --
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
--
--Island--
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
--
I am not ignoring the plausibility, I told you as much when I stated that design always remains a possibility. What I am arguing is that a plausibility is not sufficient for it to be scientifically with merit. In fact, ID has shown nothing to go beyond its eliminative and thus highly unreliable approach to detect rarefied design.
Perhaps you can show us how ID has contributed in this area to make the question a scientifically tractable one?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You ARE ignoring the plausibility...
You need to go back and read what was written because I never said anything that indicates that I think ID has merit.
PvM stated:
"I am not ignoring the plausibility"
Yes, you did quite clearly, when you said that "such questions, (adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end), remain scientifically vacuous."
ID was never implied. In fact, my example for adaptation that's guided by some higher agency was about as far from ID as you can get.
You said that questions about "fully natural mechanism ... remain scientifically vacuous".
I proved why they aren't and why your convenient ignorance of this fact proves my point.
You act like you don't even know what you said or responded to.
- island September 10, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plausibility versus scientific content
-Island-
PvM stated:
"I am not ignoring the plausibility"
Yes, you did quite clearly, when you said that "such questions, (adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end), remain scientifically vacuous."
--
You seem to be confusing plausibility and scientific relevance. The existence of magic pink unicorns in my back yard, remains a logical/theoretical possibility, however from a scientific perspective the position has little content
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yeah... whatever
PvM dodges the point again:
"You seem to be confusing plausibility and scientific relevance".
Uh, no, that's not the case.
You willfully ignored the part where I provided an observationally supported and empirically evidenced plausibility that gives real scientific credence to the call for FURTHER INVESTIGATION and equal time into the very apparent possibility that adaptation that's guided by some higher agency to a specific end is NOT a scientifically vacuous plausibility.
I proved that you conveniently don't know what you're talking about when you say that, in other words.
- island September 10, 2008 11:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lacking content
--Island--
You willfully ignored the part where I provided an observationally supported and empirically evidenced plausibility that gives real scientific credence to the call for FURTHER INVESTIGATION and equal time into the very apparent possibility that adaptation that's guided by some higher agency to a specific end is NOT a scientifically vacuous plausibility.
--
Willful? That requires an insight in my motives to which you have no visibility. But it helps underline how we humans tend so see motives and purpose where there may be none.
What 'scientific evidence' gives credence to further scientific investigation and equal time? Equal time should be earned not granted. If people believe that ID deserves equal time to real science then they should point out how ID intends to resolve the mere plausibility of design just because science has so far been unable to explain something?
It's not as if we have eye-witnesses, motives, means or opportunities to further the case. At best we have circumstantial evidence and no way to resolve the issue other than admit our ignorance. This would grant 'equal time' to all sides to present their best hypotheses. However, ID has no hypotheses beyond well, science cannot explain it.
Ignoring your ad homs, there is not much content left, just like with ID. Once the conflating terminology is exposed and the lack of scientific relevance pointed out, all ID can do is sputter ... but but but... there evidence does suggest that design may be a logical plausibility. To which a scientist would respond. Show me the beef.
Which, for ID, being mostly vegetarian, to use an analogy, seems rather impossible. When ID proponents are asked to present their best explanation, after all that is what they claim that ID is the best explanation, they respond like William Dembski
--William (Bill) Dembski--
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
---
Source: William Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002
Is it not time to address the specifics and avoid these silly ad hominems? or am I expecting too much here? Please advise.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Copernicanism isn't honest science...
PvM said:
Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
So was I, and had you clicked on the very first link or even read the rest of the post, then you'd know why.
Pvm:
"I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID..."
LOL!
- island September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth comes out...
PvM exposed his motives:
"I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents."
I'm an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, but you willingness to find god where no reason was given, proves just about everything that was said about how reactionary antifanatics hurt science just as much as any fanatical cretionist ever does.
So take your politics and vote.
- island September 10, 2008 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So take your politics and vote.
I surely intend to do so, but these issues go beyond questions of policy. I am not sure about reactionary antifanatics and how you believe it applies to me, but I can reassure you that rather than being fanatic, I am well informed and committed to my faith and good science. If that means I am guilty of some 'crime' in your eyes, then I plead willingly and proudly guilty as I stand for accuracy in science, freedom of religion and more.
I have many reasons to find 'god' and I am sure that I do not confuse my theology with my scientific endeavours, since both would suffer.
I am still somewhat lost as to the nature of your argument but at least I can attempt to address your confusions.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"MY" confusions... ?
I'm sorry that you are confused by very clear statements including much valid scientific information that show why you don't "stand for accuracy in science", but my experience dictates that your side of the political spectrum will still see you as the "winner", even without a single successful refutation anyway, so... no worries, confusion is a good tactic when you can't follow the facts.
- island September 10, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Free from content
--"Im sorry that you are confused by very clear statements including much valid scientific information that show why you don't "stand for accuracy in science", but my experience dictates that your side of the political spectrum will still see you as the "winner", even without a single successful refutation anyway, so... no worries, confusion is a good tactic when you can't follow the facts."--
Interesting, though rather confusing if not flawed assertions about where I stand. "My side of the political spectrum", not standing for accuracy in science and declaring a 'winner' when all I have done is to point out that ID is without scientific content. That you see 'motives' is telling but irrelevant to the discussion. As I have shown and argued, i stand for scientific accuracy and accuracy in science, if that bothers you, then let it be known.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure you do...
Your flawed assertion is that I haven't proven that you do not stand for scientific accuracy, and it bothers you enough to deny it in the face of facts that dictate otherwise.
buhbye
- island September 10, 2008 12:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So you claim
and yet your claim goes counter to what I have said.
Good talking to you.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
You said "ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
Wrong! Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and many others put stock in the ID theory. This is why they figured out what they did. With the assumption of ID you can bet that there is order to the natural world and that it its knowable. Einstein believed as much as people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others want to believe. After all, he was on a quest to discover the "Theory of Everything" or "to read the mind of GOD". When asked what was his objection to Quantum Mechanics he was quoted as saying, "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe"
The better question is:
"What has evolutionary biology contributed in a meaningful matter?"
I'll help you out. Mr. Richard Dawkins said that using a computer program to map out piping to containers that over generations the program had calculated the perfect plumbing for this system. Then, proceeded to say that we see the same type of ducting system in canine livers.
Ha!
That simply means that (1)there was an intelligence behind both, and (2) your program sucked because it took more than one try.
If the bank took more than one try to deposit your check, you'd be pretty steamed. You be mad to continue banking with them.
So why then, do you trust a theory in which death & time are the heroes and is obviously lacking the same credentials that you claim apply to ID.
"Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to pull the splinter out of mine!"
Jesus of Nazareth
"Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Kent Hovind
- archfilejockey
September 11, 2008 1:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's not add to the confusion.
I understand why ID proponents would like to embrace Newton and others as relevant to ID. And when pressed for details, the best they can come up with is that their faith guided them in developing scientific theories, theories which had no relevance to ID since it was based on methodological naturalism.
It's this regrettable confusion which may give ID more relevance in people's minds than it really deserves. Wanting to 'read the mind of God' can be a useful metaphor to spur scientific research to the same extent as 'wanting to discover a theory of everything' to better understand nature. One should not confuse this with ID having a meaningfull manner to science.
In fact, with Newton, one of the few ID explanations he provided, was shown to be quite wrong and it took until Laplace figured it out, to correct Newton's 'foolish' suggestion that since he could not understand how orbits of planets would remain stable, it would require God to actively correct these orbits.
The concept of God is one of faith alone, once you have accepted the existence, it is hard to imagine a world without, but similarly, to those who have not found the need or for those who were not grown up in a religious environment, the need for a God or gods seems rather foolish. And neither side really has compelling scientific arguments as to why one position should be better than others.
So let's not confuse these issues. ID is already confusing enough.
PS: Since you used double quotes to describe Einstein's response, it would be helpful to correctly quote him. It was not "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe" but rather
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." (Einstein in a 1929 letter to Max Born).
However, Einstein was hardly appealing to a God as guiding his quest for science.
--
Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---
Source: Wikipedia "Einstein"
- PvM
September 11, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are completely missing the point
My main point was that it was their believe that "GOD" whatever those particular people meant by this is debatable and completely irrelevant to the main issue. The FACT is that they did believe in some type of higher intelligence imposing his will upon the natural world and creating specifically ordered systems. Without this they would have never thought to ask the questions.
Yes, I am aware of the latter quote from Einstein, however with the assumed ignorance of believers by non-believers no wonder Einstein, as well as Stephen Hawkins, have made statements about their belief in a "GOD" and retracted for fear of persecution.
As far as sources, this isn't a term paper. I will be more than glad to provide sources if asked, otherwise, READ.
Anyway, the main point was that they believed in some derivation of ID and we all know what they figured out. I am not saying an unbeliever can't contribute to science and the body of knowledge. However, starting off with a false assumptions such as EVERY LIVING THING HAVING A COMMON ANCESTOR, you're bound to miss some things.
Also, I asked a question. Dawkins has been asked at least once and was stumped and asked to stop the camera. In a documentary he discusses the program(see my original comment) which is not an application of evolution, but more of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." DUH, I can come up with examples of when it took me more than one try to get some done correctly. Still, it's not an application of Darwinian evolution.
By the way, if you don't believe, I don't think you're stupid. I think you've been misled. I would love to tell and show you the truth. You don't have to believe what I believe, obviously. However, just because I don't believe what you believe doesn't mean I'm stupid either. I reached my conclusion on the Theism/Atheism debate by doing a little research. To assume someone else is wrong before doing the research or experimentation to prove otherwise is not only illogical, it's tragic.
In conclusion:
The contributions of people who do believe in a "GOD" are a direct application of ID, otherwise, they wouldn't have even tried to figure out what they did. Also, to try to interpret what Einstein meant is a little arrogant, let his words speak for themselves. The religious community has the same problem, they like to take whatever part of scripture and say this is what it meant. LET THE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, WE CAN READ TOO! Well, at least most of us.
For those wanting sources:
Search for "Richard Dawkins" on YouTube.com
Read "Universe in a nutshell" and "On the shoulders of giants" by Stephen Hawkins
Further Reading:
"The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day
Thanks,
Michael
/>archfilejockey@yahoo.com
- archfilejockey
September 13, 2008 7:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False assumption?
--Archfilejockey--
Anyway, the main point was that they believed in some derivation of ID and we all know what they figured out. I am not saying an unbeliever can't contribute to science and the body of knowledge. However, starting off with a false assumptions such as EVERY LIVING THING HAVING A COMMON ANCESTOR, you're bound to miss some things.
--
It's not an assumption, it's an observation based on facts, logic, and reason. I cannot believe my eyes that you are actually calling this a false assumption when it it neither.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What illusional facts are you talking about?
The only logical and only positive outcome is:
"GOD EXIST" - and here is why.
LOGIC
Case 1: NO GOD
If Correct, Nothing
If Incorrect, GOD EXISTS = NEGATIVE OUTCOME
Case 2: AGNOSTIC (CAN'T KNOW, SO I DON"T KNOW)
If GOD EXISTS, NEGATIVE OUTCOME
If NO GOD, Nothing
Case 3: GOD EXISTS
If Correct, POSITIVE OUTCOME
If Incorrect, Nothing
There it is! No agenda, no vested interest, no assumed anything, this is pure logic. When it comes to this decision the logic is quite simple all else aside. The only logical choice is that "GOD EXISTS" simply because pure logic says that is the ONLY CHANCE FOR A POSITIVE OUTCOME and ALL OTHER OPTIONS ALLOW FOR A NEGATIVE INCOME.
My common sense and/or pure logic ( I am a programmer! ) make the choice that simple, "GOD EXISTS".
What else do you got? I'll help you figure it out.
Thanks,
Michael
- archfilejockey
September 15, 2008 8:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Programmer perhaps
But Pascal's wager is an old one which is simply refuted by first pointing out that it is not about whether or not God exists but about whether or not one should worship a God, just in case He exists.
The simple solution to this wager is that one only need to point out "which God(s)". What if you select the jealous God or you end up annoying Wodan for not selecting him?
Surely there must be more to your argument?
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quoting Kent Hovind In An Intelligent Design Discussion Is A Mistake
"Archfilejockey" quoted Kent Hovind as saying: "Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Unfortunately for Kent Hovind, he has no problem finding police officers and prison guards in his current residence - he's serving time in federal prison for tax-related crimes. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist and has the dubious distinction of having other Young Earth Creationist individuals and organizations such as Answers in Genesis criticize his excessive zeal.
Quoting such ardent defenders of Young Earth Creationism as Kent Hovind in defense of intelligent design creationism is anathema to the Discovery Institute, as they continue to try desperately to convince the world that intelligent design creationism has scientific merit rather than religious merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Kent Hovind IS A GREAT MAN and is wrongfully imprisoned.
Hello,
I have heard numerous attacks on Kent Hovind, however I have heard no reasonable arguments against his words. As for his "crime", that little thing called "THE CONSTITUTION" specifically declares AD VALOREM taxes illegal. So...what "crime" did he commit. Just because an unconstitutional law is put into effect, citizens are not obligated to follow it even if it has not been ruled unconstitutional yet. Funny, I've know people that have been convicted of tax evasion/fraud but weren't sentenced with anywhere near what he was given.
I know all about Kent Hovind and find his imprisonment a moral travesty. While I don't believe everything he believes, I do agree with most of it.
If you have proof of an Old Earth, please share it. If not, it would be quite arrogant and ignorant to assume them incorrect.
Thanks,
Michael
- archfilejockey
September 15, 2008 8:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hovind
He was found guilty of violating the laws of this country so while one may believe that he is wrongly imprisoned, the courts so far have given such an argument little credibility.
As to an old earth, there is so much evidence that it seems rather foolish to argue otherwise. Most noticably radiometric dating. And yes I am aware of the mostly ignorant objections by YECers. I used to be one.
In Christ
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More on Hovind
--
On October 21, 2006, the trial began in which he hoped to convince a jury that his amusement park admission and merchandise sales belonged to God and cannot be taxed.[31] Former and current workers, IRS agents, a bank employee, and a lawyer of a non-profit Christian organization testified in the trial. Workers testified that they had to punch time cards, had vacation and sick days; while others testified Hovind claimed he had "beat" the tax system.[146] During the trial, the judge "admonished" Hovind's attorney for wasting time and asking irrelevant questions.[147]
The trial concluded on November 1 with the defense deciding not to present a case.[148] After closing arguments were presented on November 2, the jury deliberated three hours before finding the Hovinds guilty on all counts, 58 for Hovind and 44 for his wife.[143] The Pensacola News Journal noted, "The saddest thing: Had they cooperated with the agents, they probably wouldn't be worrying about prison sentences now."[149]
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
The defense did not even present a case. Wow... That seems pretty much admission.
Fascinating hypothesis, eventually as flawed as his 'young earth' one.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
conflating evolution with the creation of the universe
Einstein's quotes are not supportive of ID, he was talking about the fabric of the universe, not the means by which species evolve. This is a common shell game played by ID proponents. They setup some premise based on the creation of the universe then draw a conclusion about evolution and hope that no one notices. Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue.
- reckoner
October 16, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
???
"Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue."
Find an ID proponent who said otherwise.
- F2XL
October 22, 2008 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
here are two examples
This is in a conversation with an ID proponent who list what he'd need as proof of evolution in a post titled "is intelligent design a testable theory". I can produce many many more of these if you'd like.
"One single tiny bit of proof of any scientist coming up with organic material from non-organic material." http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/149951/Is-Intelligent-Design-A-Testable-Theory %3F
You may say, but he's some random guy on a blog. True, but I hear this over and over and over again. These people get it from somewhere. Maybe they get it from places like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY
Notice in here that Ben Stein implicitly conflates the question of how life could come from mud and lightning with the issue of evolution and intelligent design.
This is one of two conflations that happen a lot in ID talk. Conflating evolution with the beginning of life (two separate things) and the other which I haven't linked to is conflating it with the big bang. I can produce many examples of that as well, but I'm hoping you take my word for it so I don't have to waste 30 minutes of my time.
- reckoner
October 23, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Those are contextulizations.
"This is in a conversation with an ID proponent who list what he'd need as proof of evolution in a post titled "is intelligent design a testable theory". I can produce many many more of these if you'd like."
I'm talking about actual Discovery Institute proponents who are actually developing the theory, not some random quotemines you used off the internet (which I'm pretty sure you have many more of).
"You may say, but he's some random guy on a blog. True, but I hear this over and over and over again. These people get it from somewhere."
Definitely not the DI in Seattle, WA, that's for sure.
"Maybe they get it from places like this."
(watches the super trailer and reflects on memories from the time I first saw it)
"Notice in here that Ben Stein implicitly conflates the question of how life could come from mud and lightning with the issue of evolution and intelligent design."
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with saying that Evolution and the creation of the universe are the same thing.
"This is one of two conflations that happen a lot in ID talk. Conflating evolution with the beginning of life (two separate things)"
You've changed the subject. I'm sticking with your first claim that IDers conflate Evolution with Cosmology.
And where in the super trailer (which to this day still gets me excited for the movie) does he insist OoL is the same as Evolution?
"and the other which I haven't linked to is conflating it with the big bang."
I would like to see this as well. If you can find a DI rep insisting the ToE is the same as the OotU then I would be surprised.
- F2XL
October 26, 2008 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
fair enough
fair enough regarding random people off the internet. I'll read into the discovery institute when I have time.
Regarding Ben Stein's movie. Often good propagandists don't make their point explicit. They let the consumer make the false connection. Why would he bring up life coming from non-life in a movie about ID? To conflate the two. As i've said, I have many examples of people on the internet explicitly conflating the two. They get it from somewhere, and somewhere are things like Stein's movie. The person who first linked me to that trailer is one such person.
- reckoner
October 27, 2008 8:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cosmology
"I'm sticking with your first claim that IDers conflate Evolution with Cosmology. "
Btw, have you read the experts in this debate?
"Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?"
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/is-there-merit-for-id-in-cosmology-physics-and-astronomy
- reckoner
October 27, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
so I wasted my time
"1) Evolutionary theory is blocked at its beginning, the big bang. "
http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/89361/Did-Darwin-Murder-God %3F
- reckoner
October 23, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
See the previous point
First paragraph in that last comment to be specific.
- F2XL
October 26, 2008 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.