Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [OriginsTalk] Design W/O a Designer?

Expand Messages
  • Alan-
    *_Anti-Designers are the ones who want to avoid asking the questions that would be embarrassing to themselves. For example, I m not embarrassed at all to tell
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1, 2007
      *_Anti-Designers are the ones who want to avoid asking the questions
      that would be embarrassing to themselves. For example, I'm not
      embarrassed at all to tell you who the Designer is, no problem, just
      ask. It's trying to change the subject.

      The ADAC's (Anti-Design and anti-creationists), by pretending to change
      the subject to "Who", thereby attempt to (1)_leave the science out of
      it, and (2)_change the argument to a theological one, and (3)_then
      denounce it as an argument from religion.

      That way, they can avoid facing the reality of the science, and avoid
      having to actually face the embarrassing question of "Who" that they
      pretend to be asking.

      >>Phil S:
      See how the only examples of design ever given by ID theorists are human
      artifacts & machines already known to be designed (just like Paley's
      watch) and where we already know that humans (or some humanoid creature)
      can design things? In the case of the computer, the designer is already
      understood. In the case of organic systems, the "Designer" is hidden
      from view to keep people from asking embarrassing questions about it.

      **__"....Or some humanoid creature..." Eh? ROTFL! How would you know? If
      SETI suddenly caught bleeps that occurred in series of prime numbers, as
      in very ADAC Carl Sagan's fiction "Contact", you would not know one
      stupid little thing about whether the "Designer" of this intelligently
      constructed design was even "humanoid" or not! ROTFL!

      Sagan cannot be accused of creationism or even ID advocacy, but he
      certainly knows, as do all the participants in SETI who have any
      intelligence at all, they all would be able to tell you exactly how they
      intend to tell the difference, and after that, they'll even tell you
      there might even be other ways they don't even know about!

      This demand is ONLY made of creationists, and it's a circular argument.
      Demand to get the subject off of science and change it to theology, so
      they can claim that it's a discussion about theology.

      Nice trick, doesn't work. Try to avoid the Designer by pretending to
      demand discussing the Designer. ROTFL!

      So who's hiding what? Somebody hiding behind the straw man, and it isn't
      ID'ers, who actually dispute the Who while agreeing on the What, nor is
      it (Biblical) creationists like myself, who (myself for example) have
      introduced several hundred people to the Who Himself.

      I invite you and any others to accept facing up to the facts of the
      science so you too can then actually consider the very question you
      pretend to ask but are so much afraid of.

      ---Alan
    • Susan Cogan
      http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/fearful-idists-cant-meet-ethics-challenge-in-dallas/ Fearful IDists can t meet ethics challenge in Dallas Advocates
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 10, 2007
        http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/fearful-idists-cant-meet-ethics-challenge-in-dallas/

        Fearful IDists can't meet ethics challenge in Dallas

        Advocates of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute have been
        rattled by the strong showing of scientists at Southern Methodist
        University who called their bluff, and questioned SMU for hosting an
        ID conference this week. SMU's officials pointed out they were just
        renting out facilities, and not hosting the conference at all.

        The ID conference, with special religious group activities preceding
        it, is scheduled for April 13 and 14 at SMU. It is a rerun of a
        similar revival held in Knoxville, Tennessee, last month. The
        conference features no new scientific research, no serious science
        sessions with scientists looking at new research, or new findings
        from old data.

        In return, ID advocates "challenged" scientists to show up at a
        creationist-stacked function Friday evening. To the best of my
        knowledge, all working scientists declined the invitation, on the
        understanding that in science, there is no debate.

        This morning's Dallas Morning News features the expected desperation
        move by Discovery Institute officials Bruce Chapman and John West.
        They accuse the scientists of being "would-be censors."

        This is highly ironic coming from the group that spent tens of
        thousands of dollars trying to convince the Texas State Board of
        Education to censor and bawdlerize Texas biology books in 2003.

        But go read the stuff for yourself. Some of us have real work to do
        today, and there is not time for the appropriate, godly Fisking this
        piece deserves right now. (Readers? Friends?)

        My dander is up, however, and I offer a counter challenge:

        Discovery Institute, what is it you're afraid of? Let's meet, and
        discuss the ethical challenges you've experienced in this discussion.
        Specifically, let's discuss:

        One, your misrepresentation of the science of Darwin, and your
        repeated attempts to mislead school officials - remember the claim in
        Ohio that federal law requires discussion of intelligent design? Was
        that a hoax that fell flat, or an honest misunderstanding? In any
        case, we still await your disowning of the falsehood, years later.

        Two, your support of unethical screeds against science and
        scientists. I'll mention one here: You need to disown the dishonest
        and unethical work of Jonathan Wells. Look at his book, Icons of
        Evolution, which is promoted at your website. I call your attention
        to his chapter of misinformation against the work of Bernard
        Kettlewell on peppered moths. Check out the citations in his chapter.
        If one believes his footnotes, there are many scientists who support
        his views on Kettlewell's pioneering and still valid work. You need
        to acknowledge that the footnotes are ethically challenged; you need
        to acknowledge in print that each of the scientists involved, and
        others, have disowned Wells' work and said that his claims
        misrepresent their work and the status of science. In polite,
        scientific terms, these people have called Wells a prevaricator. You
        still promote his screed as valid.

        Three, your support of name-calling must stop. Especially, you need
        to pull your support from books, conferences, and editorial pieces
        that say evolution was a cause of the Holocaust. The attempts to
        connect Darwin to Hitler are scurrilous, inaccurate, unethical and
        unholy.

        Chapman, West, the Methodist Church does not endorse your views on
        evolution, and if they understood your tactics I suspect they would
        disown your tactics as well. You are guests on a campus that does
        serious science work and also hosts people of faith. You need to
        bring your organizations ethical standards up to a higher level.

        You want a debate? The science journals are open - the federal courts
        have repeatedly found that claims of bias against you are completely
        unfounded (untrue, that is . . . well, you understand what I'm trying
        to say politely, right?). The journals await your research reports.

        All of science has been awaiting your research reports for years, for
        decades. (Here's one famous case: "Three Years and Counting," at
        Pharyngula (a science-related blog run by an evolutionary biologist).

        You want to debate? Stop hurling epithets, and bring evidence.

        As an attorney, parent, teacher, and reader of Texas biology
        textbooks, I'd be pleased to debate your need to change your ways.
        The debate needs to focus on your methods and ethics. Are you up to
        it?

        Earlier posts of interest:
        * "Duty to speak against intelligent design."
        * "Have you spoken against intelligent design or other
        dangerous superstition today?"
        * A pig that won't fly.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.