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

Re: IS EVOLUTION FINISHED?

Expand Messages
  • JamesG
    D R Lindberg: If Dembski s juvenile caricature with its farting noises every time Jones opens his mouth doesn t amount to demonization, what does? There s a
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 29, 2013
      D R Lindberg: "If Dembski's juvenile caricature with its farting noises every time Jones opens his mouth doesn't amount to demonization, what does?"

      There's a difference between mocking and demonizing (check your dictionary). You'd have more success finding examples of demonization of intellectual adversaries on Darwinist blogs like Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb than on any Discovery Institute website.

      D R Lindberg: "But it's highly enlightening to compare what they say about him now with the sort of things that appeared on their websites BEFORE his findings were announced..."

      Well, "they" (i.e., "the DI gang") didn't say those things about Judge Jones. Instead, those things were said by one DaveScot (a pseudonym?), who was at the time he said them the moderator of the ID blog "Uncommon Descent" (he resigned that position in 2008). On what grounds do you attribute DaveScot's opinion to "the DI gang"? Dembski's article - which DaveScot used as a launching pad for his opinionated comments - lends no support to your contention that Discovery Institute thought Judge Jones would be biased in favor of ID. Dembski was rather confident that Judge Jones would not rule that ID is not science not because he expected Judge Jones to be biased in that direction, but for the simple fact that ID is - by any reasonable understanding of the word - science.

      Jim in Missouri
    • Charles Palm
      David Williams: You are making stuff up again. Seti has nothing to do with biology. Charles P: In other words, you believe that the SETI scientists are
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 29, 2013
        David Williams: You are making stuff up again. Seti has nothing to do with
        biology.

        Charles P: In other words, you believe that the SETI scientists are
        expecting to receive messages from some non-living materials? I do not
        think so. I think that the SETI scientists expect to receive information
        from an intelligent source. They have invested a lot of time and money
        based upon the assumption that information is designed and that information
        comes from intelligent sources, not random processes from non-living
        materials.

        David Williams: I do not believe anything you say aout molecular science.

        Charles P: Please do not take my word for anything. Verify it for
        yourself. If you discover that I have made a mistake, please share it with
        us here on Origins Talk. I try to learn from my mistakes.

        Charles P: Whatever you discover, David, please present evidence that the
        average reader can observe, test, replicate, and verify.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Truman
        ... How was science defined as it was for several centuries in such a way that its explanatory options are not limited by an a priori commitment to
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 30, 2013
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:

          > Minnich was more
          > or less urging the same thing, which amounts to urging that science
          > be defined (as it was for several centuries) in such a way that its
          > explanatory options are not limited by an a priori commitment to
          > materialism.

          How was science defined as it was for several centuries in such a way
          that its explanatory options are not limited by an a priori commitment
          to materialism? That doesn't make any sense. Astrology used to be
          science becuase of the way science was defined. Now it is not science.
          But with the urging of Behe and Minnich, astrology may be science
          again. Oh dang! I forgot that it is only ID that gets the special
          treatment.

          By a priori commitment to materialism, you mean it excludes the
          supernatural as an explanation? The overwhelming majority of
          scientists, which include theists, do not have a commintment to
          materialism when they do what is called by the NAS as "science". By
          doing "science", they are having a commitment to use methodological
          materialsm/naturalism. There is a difference.

          Minnich already testified that methodological naturalism did not
          necessarily exclude intelligent design from the realm of science.

          It is interesting that ID swears they have no identity of the designer
          and no inferential trails, but yet they already know that
          "materialism" is going to limit their explananitory options before
          they even start to give explanations.

          Truman
        • Charles Palm
          Truman: It is interesting that ID swears they have no identity of the designer and no inferential trails, but yet they already know that *materialism* is
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 30, 2013
            Truman: It is interesting that ID swears they have no identity of the
            designer and no inferential trails, but yet they already know that
            *materialism* is going to limit their explananitory options before they
            even start to give explanations.

            Charles P: I do not believe that the SETI scientists are expecting to
            receive a message from God. In their search for extraterrestrial
            intelligence, they seem to be expecting an intelligently designed message.
            They seem to believe that information is intelligently designed. They
            seem to be expecting information from some biological source. I do not
            think that they are expecting a message from non-living randomly generated
            purposeless materials.

            Charles P: I am not authorized to speak for ID. I can only speak for
            myself, but why is it not reasonable to assume that biological information
            neither proves the existence of anything supernatural nor does it disprove
            the existence of anything supernatural. It seems to me that all we really
            know is that biological information cannot have miraculously appeared from
            non-living materials. We know that it is here. We know that at some time
            in the past biological information did not exist. We know that biological
            information began at some time in the past.

            Charles P: Why can*t atheists accept that biological information did not
            come from random purposeless processes acting on non-living materials? If
            there is some other explanation, why do they try to distract our attention
            away from the central issue? Atheists seem to accept the idea that
            extraterrestrial intelligence exists, but atheists do not seem to accept
            the idea that biological information on Earth is also designed.

            Charles P: If design in nature is an illusion, then why aren*t the
            atheists trying to limit the resources available to the search for
            extraterrestrial intelligence? Would it not be a waste of time and
            resources to expect an extraterrestrial message from an illusion?


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