Re: IS EVOLUTION FINISHED?
- 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
- David Williams: You are making stuff up again. Seti has nothing to do with
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
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]
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
> Minnich was moreHow was science defined as it was for several centuries in such a way
> 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
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
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: 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
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]