T
tonyrey
Guest
Please produce specific evidence.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Those who attack Design fail to realise their attack is based on purposeful activity. They are undermining the rational basis of their argument because they haven’t explained how purposeful activity originated, let alone the power of reason. How did purposeless, mindless molecules produce rational activity? As the sceptic David Hume remarked, the cause ought to be proportioned to the effect. In other words it is a hopelessly inadequate explanation!
T
tonyrey
Guest
To be precise, the Church accepts evolution in the context of Creation by God.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is to be expected that those who believe the universe is irrational eventually become irrational themselves. After all we can’t get something for nothing, can we? Ultimately we get everything for nothing - our very existence - but there is always a price to pay for the gifts we have received. Our conscience and power of self-control incur responsibility. Our capacity for unselfish love leads to an obligation to love others and, of course, to love God and be grateful for all that He has given us…
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Whatever Bradski. I’d stick to grammer mistakes if I were you, which I am not.
B
Bradski
Guest
Legal finding by John E Jones III in the Dover case :
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
In other words…they lied.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m good with that. And try to stay on point. The discussion is not about abiogenesis.
B
Bradski
Guest
So very, very tempted…
I
inocente
Guest
so crisi was like “what-e-v-e-r” and she went all grammar mafia but she spelled grammar wrong so epic fail lol then she went “well I’m not you” which was totally extra lol
[extra - unnecessary, redundant, excessively dramatic - Urban Dictionary]
T
tonyrey
Guest
In other words you believe John E Jones III is infallible despite the fact that an **adequate **explanation of reality is not scientific but metascientific, i.e. metaphysical.
There have been many irrefutable criticisms of his judgement, e.g.
evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1/
T
tonyrey
Guest
The discussion is about Design which is a metascientific interpretation of reality. Do you really believe science can explain itself? Can it explain the intelligibility of the universe plus our insight into reality? If so please produce evidence.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is interesting to observe how many posts are irrelevant to the topic due to lack of positive alternatives…
The question remains unanswered:
How did purposeless, mindless molecules produce rational activity?
The question remains unanswered:
How did purposeless, mindless molecules produce rational activity?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Irrefutable! There is no doubt evolution has occurred but to present it as a comprehensive explanation of reality is totally illogical and unjustified. We need to ask |“Can evolution explain evolution?” If not what is the ultimate explanation?
T
tonyrey
Guest
NB This website cannot be accessed in Windows XP and probably not in other Windows editions. In case you don’t have Linux I’m appending the paragraph headings:
***1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.
***2. Judge Jones wrongly treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as the ultimate source of the argument to design. (Plato and Aristotle were responsible)
*****3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design “requires supernatural creation.” (p. 30, emphasis added)
********4. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design grew out of Christian fundamentalism.
********I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AS DESCRIBED IN PANDAS, DIFFERS FROM CREATIONISM IN BOTH METHODOLOGY AND PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT.
A. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Bases Its Claims On Empirical Evidence And Scientific Methods Rather Than Upon Faith, Doctrine, Or Scripture.
****B. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Is Distinct From Creationism Because It Does Not Use Science To Postulate A “Supernatural Creator,” Nor Does It Attempt To Validate The Biblical Account In Genesis.
**
**1. Pandas Demonstrates That Intelligent Design Takes A Scientific Approach Which Cannot Identify The Designer.
**
**************2. Plaintiffs Mistakenly Contrast Natural Causes With Supernatural Causes, Rather Than With Intelligent Causes.
****************3. Statements About A “Master Intellect” Do Not Endorse Religion.
**Like Big Bang cosmology or Neo-Darwinism, the theory of intelligent design in biology is not religious because it lacks “comprehensiveness” and is “generally confined to one question.”
BTW It is important to distinguish intelligent design in biology from the Argument to Design which is a metaphysical interpretation of reality.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Poor tony… talking to yourself again? At least you will have no disagreement.
B
Bradski
Guest
So their claim was that ID is distinct from creationism? So let’s look at the book that the DI wanted to be used as a text book to teach (ahem) intelligent design. It was issued on 4 separate occasions. The contents of the book remained virtually unchanged in each issue, but the title seems to have undergone a mysterious transformation:
1983: Creation Biology
1986: Biology and Creation
1987: Biology and Origin
In each of those issues, they refer to the process whereby life has come to be as it appears now as ‘creationism’ which was controlled by an ‘creationist’ (not sure who they had in mind…).
And then just before the Dover trial, you’ll never guess what happened. The title dropped all references to creation and was then called Of Pandas and People.
But you can’t tell a book just by its cover. The contents still referred to ‘creationism’ and ‘a creationist’ to explain how life came to be as it appears now. But no problem for the guys at the DI. They simply reprinted the book yet again and literally changed all instances of the word ‘creationism’ with intelligent design’ and the word ‘creationist’ by ‘intelligent design proponent’.
And then they honestly thought they could convince everyone that creationism has no connection with ID. No, really. They thought they would get away with something that wouldn’t fool a third grader.
But you already knew this, Tony. I’ve only posted it again because it gives anyone who wasn’t aware of the facts a chance to decide how the DI operates.
More info here: newscientist.com/article/dn8061-book-thrown-at-proponents-of-intelligent-design/
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is highly amusing to observe how I’m supposed to be talking to myself. Infantile fantasies are very common on this thread - unless of course Brad doesn’t exist… I think he deserves an apology unless he is a product of my imagination! He must be very alarmed and/or annoyed but he needn’t be because the other person also puts the Creator in that category and is probably a solipsist - or at least living in a world of his own most of the time having adopted a policy of “splendid isolation” (a hell of his own making in which aggression is a dominant factor).Poor tony… talking to yourself again? At least you will have no disagreement.
T
tonyrey
Guest
First of all you need to refute the following statements that you have ignored:
***1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.
***2. Judge Jones ****wrongly ****treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as the ultimate source of the argument to design. (Plato and Aristotle were responsible)
*********3. Judge Jones ********wrongly ****claims that intelligent design “requires supernatural creation.” (p. 30, emphasis added)
4. Judge Jones wrongly ********claims that intelligent design grew out of Christian fundamentalism.
********I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AS DESCRIBED IN PANDAS, DIFFERS FROM CREATIONISM IN BOTH METHODOLOGY AND PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT.
A. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas,**** Bases Its Claims On Empirical Evidence And Scientific Methods********** Rather Than Upon Faith, Doctrine, Or Scripture.
****B. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Is Distinct From Creationism Because It Does Not Use Science To Postulate A “Supernatural Creator,”**********Nor Does It Attempt To Validate The Biblical Account In Genesis.
**If you cannot refute these statements Design remains intact as the most adequate interpretation of reality consistent with the way every reasonable person thinks and behaves. No one lives as if we exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.
The discussion about DI is a red herring…**
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is it a crime to give children or anyone else an explanation that science cannot answer? If so it is an unbalanced and unequal society dominated by secularists.
Which is precisely the mistake some contributors are making…
I
inocente
Guest
- Status