Re: Central Organizing Principle
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan <susan-brassfield@...>
> >b15769140: plain and simple-there is no evidence man evolved from a
> >creature--that is a fact and it is why the majority of americansWhy is science supposed to be the standard of truth? Why is
> >reject evolution
> >Is there ANY evidence for Darwin's magic monkey myth?
> ah, the "Say it doesn't exist and declare victory" argument. I
> haven't seen that one in days and days.
> Most people reject evolution for religious reasons, not scientific
> ones. You (and they) have absolutely no idea what the scientific
> evidence for evolution is. You keep yourself carefully sheltered
> from ever finding out about it.
mathematics presumed to be certainty? The Bible is verified with
simple sight. We can see the past in the distant heavens. We can see
a biblical cosmic history with sight. The entire structure of
scientific reasoning is negated with simple sight. The Bible
predicts that God will make foolish the wisdom of the world. How much
more foolish can it get?
Scientists have a blind dogma that is the basis of their entire
structured way of thinking. The Bible predicted this and identifies
it as the arche of the last days "all things diamenei: remain the same
in being." We can see with sight in every part of the spectrum that
all atoms change relationally as they age. We can see how galaxies
formed and it surely does not fit the mathematical myths of the
The horror is that Christians have been tailoring the Bible to fit
science for several centuries now. They have a higher standard of
truth than words and grammar. They desperately want the Bible to be
scientific. How sad! With sight we can see with our eyes that the
Bible completely triumphs over science, the system founded upon the
first principle of a pagan Greek. Look with your eyes. Free
yourselves from the dogma of science that matter does not
change-itself. We can see what the Bible states - that everything in
creation is phthora (fundamentally changing). NO wonder science's
version of earth history violates the genealogies and accounts of all
> You share a common ancestor with apes. You share between 94-98% of
> your genes with them. Only apes have a collar bone or flat
> Just about every medicine you take is tested on animals because you
> share about 80% of your genes with mice. We share a fairly recent
> common ancestor with mice.
> You are a mammal. You have all the characteristics of other mammals.
> All of that is evidence that we evolved from "lower" animals and it's
> available to you every time you look in the mirror.
> >b15769140: nonsense--humans think and decide -animals don't
> animals think and decide. Where did you get the idea they don't? We
> do it a lot better than they do, but they definitely do it.
> COGAN BOOKS & MORE
> THE SPEAKEASY
> THE EVOLVING ARTIST
>--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan <susan-brassfield@...>because it works so very well.
>> >b15769140: plain and simple-there is no evidence man evolved from a
>> >creature--that is a fact and it is why the majority of americans
>> >reject evolution
>> >Is there ANY evidence for Darwin's magic monkey myth?
>> ah, the "Say it doesn't exist and declare victory" argument. I
>> haven't seen that one in days and days.
>> Most people reject evolution for religious reasons, not scientific
>> ones. You (and they) have absolutely no idea what the scientific
>> evidence for evolution is. You keep yourself carefully sheltered
>> from ever finding out about it.
>Why is science supposed to be the standard of truth?
>Why issame thing. works so very well
>mathematics presumed to be certainty?
> The Bible is verified withIf a time traveller went back to the time of Socrates and Pythagorus
>simple sight. We can see the past in the distant heavens. We can see
> a biblical cosmic history with sight. The entire structure of
>scientific reasoning is negated with simple sight. The Bible
>predicts that God will make foolish the wisdom of the world. How much
>more foolish can it get?
she would have a tremendous amount to teach both of them about
science and mathematics. If a modern theologian went back to Thomas
Aquinus or Augustine, he would have nothing new to add. If science
and math disappeared from the world at noon, by the next day we'd all
be living in caves. If all the religions of the world disappeared
from the world at noon, by the next day almost all wars would cease
and the entire world would look like Sweden.
>CENTRAL ORGANIZING PRINCIPLEthat's all "intelligent design" means. When they say "it couldn't
> Me: "If a thing can be confidently attributed to design, the origin
>of the thing has been explained in general, if not specific, terms."
> Susan: "nothing at all has been explained. No knowledge has been
>added to the world's total store. Nothing useful has been produced that
>will lead to more knowledge. Real knowledge leads you to ask questions and
>therefore to greater knowledge. Once you've decided something was
>created by God out of nothing, you're done. You can go home."
> ID theory does not posit that "something was created by God out of
>nothing." So long as you cling to that erroneous notion (a notion peddled
>by the likes of Ed Brayton, PZ Myers, and other ill-informed [or dishonest]
>critics of ID), you'll never understand ID theory.
have evolved, it had to be designed." They mean God materialized it
in it's present working state in toto all at once. If there's another
interpretation for "it was designed intelligently" please provide it.
Don't bother with aliens. If aliens did it, then THEY had to have
>For whatever reason, youother than it's theistic implications all it has is hot air. It
>(like Judge Jones of Dover fame) seem to be quite incapable of
>distinguishing between the theistic implications of ID theory and its
>propositional contents and methodologies.
contributes nothing to science. It's a pointless exercise in
>If your manner of thinking wereunless God created evolution. Since you can watch evolution happen,
>applied to Darwinism, we'd have to say that Darwinism has decided that
>nothing was created by God.
that would be just like watching God design something. Of course
IDists claim nothing evolves, so there's no god to to watch.
>But if we were to say such a thing, Darwinistsin other words ID is completely focused on proving God did it. Once
>would instantly protest that their theory has nothing to say about God. And
>they would be right. Darwinism speaks to the God question only by
>implication; the theory itself is silent on the question. The same is true
>of ID theory, which - like Darwinism - relies only on biological data and
>logical inference. Creationism has a stake in Genesis, but ID theory
>doesn't. The theory is limited to developing the mathematical, logical and
>scientific tools needed to discern actual (or intelligent) design in
you are done with that you can go home. Since you already believe God
did it, it's really an impotent and vapid exercise. It's a waste of
>The biological data - ID theorists argue - can take usright once you decide it was designed--by mathematical flummery or
>no further than design. The data cannot lead us to the identity of the
>designer. Design theorist Wm. Dembski addressed this point as follows (in
>"The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent
whatever--then you hang up your lab coat and turn out the lights. You
have proved something you believed all along anyway.
>I don't worry that. I know that.
> "Creationists and naturalists alike worry that when design
>theorists refer to a 'designer' or 'designing intelligence,' and thus avoid
>explicitly referring to God, they are merely engaged in a rhetorical ploy.
>Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in"designing intelligence" = "God"
>nature reliably point to a designing intelligence.
nobody is fooled by this falsehood. Repeat it all you want, but
nobody is fooled. It just makes you look foolish.
So tell me. What does the Intelligent Designer do that God doesn't
do? Or, if you prefer, what limits does the Intelligent Designer have
that God doesn't have?
> If your claim that "(o)nce you've decided something was created byonce you have detected design, what is the next step? In biology, not
>God out of nothing, you're done" were at all relevant to ID theory, it
>should be phrased in this way: "Once you've determined that something was
>designed, you're done." Phrased in either way, the claim is utterly bogus.
>If design is detected in a physical or biological system, a variety ofSuch as?
>design-theoretic research possibilities would open up.
>In an essaydoesn't require detecting design in biology. Everybody already knows
>appearing in "Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design,"
>philosopher of science Bruce Gordon lays out some of those research
>possibilities as follows:
> 1) the details of the construction of the system as a problem in
people design things.
<delete all this irrelevant stuff about human design>
>Dembski has never defined "information"
> In "The Design Revolution," Dembski lays out a number of ID
>research themes as follows (I'll simply list these themes without
>elaboration - if you're interested in understanding what they entail, you
>can read the book):
> 1) Design detection;
> 2) Biological information;
> 3) Minimal complexity;you mean like an atom? What can this mean?
> 4) Evolvability;and this? Things have been observed evolving.
all the rest have to do with human design. We already know humans
>but they've never been able to tell how you distinguish between
> Susan: "ID only predicts that some things will look designed. Of
>course, you can point in any direction and claim what you are pointing at
>looks designed *to you*. Hey, look! There's one now!!!"
> Actually, ID contends that some things *were* designed, not that
>they merely *look* designed (it really would be helpful if you'd actually
>learn something about design theory before you attempt to describe it).
>Design theorists rely on objective - not subjective - methods for detecting
>design in biological systems.
something that is designed and something that is not. They say things
like "too complex to have evolved unguided" but designed things are
generally simple. The better the design they have the simpler they
are. Complex things evolve.
Neither Dembski nor Behe have pointed to a biological system and said
"this was not designed and here's why." (Nor will they ever. That
would be science, not religious apologetics.)
> Susan: "A fairy circle displays an independently given pattern. Itpeople did for hundreds of generations. They assumed they had
>was assumed to be guided by an intelligence, because it LOOKED like an
>intelligence had made it."
> I can't imagine that any design theorist would attribute a fairy
>circle to design simply because it's circular.
detected design. Modern IDists wouldn't because real science has
explained how it evolved.
> Susan: "You can't use ID to prove creation ex nihlo...""Intelligent designer" = "God"
> ID theory makes no effort "to prove creation ex nihlo (sic)." Once
>again, you're erroneously conflating ID with creationism.
Point out how they are different.