B
Bradski
Guest
Le Fannu: Essentially, Intelligent Design is Creationism.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s simple. Since the Biology textbook relies on purely natural - non-God - causes for the development of life, God is automatically excluded. The reader/student is persuaded that purely non-God forces went from single cell organisms to man. That is not the same as saying that Biology textbooks should add God, it only means that the Biology textbook’s ‘nothing but natural forces led to you and me’ represents a pillar of support for non-theists. From that worldview, anyone saying God was involved is simply dismissed. Divine providence and other religious claims are nonsense. That’s the primary point of these pseudo-debates. Different words, same basic divisions, over and over.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
He did believe in God. He didn’t believe in the standard Trinitarian God. He was a non-Trinitarian.Some people try to pretend Newton didn’t believe in God either.
rossum
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
So? What’s your point?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But he believed that Scriptures held the key to prophecy of end times.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Soon after Darwin (even during his lifetime) a whole school of atheistic evolutionism developed that found justification for atheism in the supposed dismissal of God as an explanation for how life was created and evolved. This breed of fundamentalist atheism is still going strong, with Richard Dawkins as it present day High Priest. It is fundamentalist because it is founded on a belief, not a proof, that God explains nothing because there is no God. There being no God, there cannot possibly be an explanation for Creation based on Intelligent Design. Make no mistake about it. It’s not that atheistic evolution wants to ban God from all scientific inquiry; it’s that atheist evolution is so fundamentalist it wants to ban God period. The new Bible of this fundamentalism is The God Delusion, and Richard Dawkins is the prophet who wrote it.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Yes and he certainly didn’t pray to Buddha!But he believed that Scriptures held the key to prophecy of end times.
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
Come on, give Dawkins a break. I mean, Jim Carrey can’t be the only true comic, I mean with Buddy Hacket and Rodney Dangerfield gone, we need all the laughs we can get.
Seriously, nobody takes Dawkins seriously, if they have a mind anyway, his ideas are so radical, that they offend the evolutionist as much as the Creationist.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure, everything is, it has to be.
E
edwest2
Guest
Hmm. Then why was he on TV calmly telling people that a being he claims does not exist did not do certain things as recorded in the Bible? Why does he rail against a being that is a delusion? I think your definition of nobody takes Dawkins seriously does not explain why the God Delusion was on the New York Times bestseller list for 22 weeks.
Ed
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
“… although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6
Why would anyone ask us not to take this as a serious challenge to religion, and how many shallow thinkers like Dawkins have followed his path since the days of Darwin?
– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6
Why would anyone ask us not to take this as a serious challenge to religion, and how many shallow thinkers like Dawkins have followed his path since the days of Darwin?
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc Dawkins the clown on God, being humiliated by Ben Stein.
R
rossum
Guest
That is the way science works. If something is real, and there is observational support for it, then it is incorporated into the relevant scientific theory. Both HGT and the precession of the orbit of Mercury have changed the relevant theories.
rossum
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Let me answer your simple question.
What I “prefer” is completely irrelevant.
Either the cosmos and life ARE intelligently designed or they ARE NOT.
If they ARE, then…
- Existing physical evidence may/will demonstrate or, at least, corroborate that hypothesis.
- Pursuing existing physical evidence without prejudice as to whether life and the cosmos are/were intelligently designed is a better all-round strategy for viewing evidence in terms of all implications to be taken from it than beginning with the presumption that intelligent design is to be ruled out from the start by fiat.
- Existing physical evidence ought to demonstrate, not assume, THAT in an entirely consistent and indubitable way.
- Atheists ought not go out of their way to deny without prejudice where the evidence, taken as a whole, leads.
- Beginning with a presumption that the evidence cannot and should not lead to an intelligent designer is not an unprejudiced practice of science nor of the scientific method and that presumption itself would be shown to be unnecessary since full consideration of the evidence will eventually get us to the truth.
As it stands, atheism, as a world view, is unfairly advantaged by the assumption that the scientific method MUST begin with a presumption of naturalism since the “God hypothesis” is ruled out from being a possible finding from the get go.
You complain about intelligent design findings being biased by theistic beliefs, but you have no qualms about the “findings” of science being biased towards naturalism in the very way science is conducted.
B
buffalo
Guest
So evo theory is unfalsifiable?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well yes, I think he is a sad clown who means to entertain, but his quote from Bertrand Russell gives him away. He admits as Russell admitted, that if some day he has to encounter the God he mocks, and this God asks why he could not see God beyond his unbelieving nose, he will just have to ask God why he did such a good job of hiding himself from view.
It never occurred to Russell or Dawkins, I suspect, that God was not hiding from them, but that they were fleeing the presence of God. Think Francis Thompson’s poem “Hound of Heaven.”
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
Dawkins is a comic, until you find him teaching your children…
B
Bradski
Guest
Your particular preference is irrelevant, but the question is central to the whole discussion. You are saying that we should look at the evidence, but the evidence is inadmissible.
By aliens? The Borg perhaps? You can’t even bring yourself to say ‘God’ when you talk about it. It’s always ‘an intelligent designer’. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference. You even list people who you claim are atheists who back you up in some laughable attempt to convince everyone that it’s some sort of secular movement – nothing to do with us Christians, no siree.
It’s creationism, Peter. You know it, I know it, the DI knows it, the people they fund know it, the people you list that are meant to be supporting your views are quoted saying it and even people writing in this thread who have been arguing against it end up admitting it.
Oh my word, I really do not see how you can type a sentence like that and think that you can maintain any credibility. The sheer effrontery to suggest that we should not pre-judge the matter when literally everything than anyone has done in pushing ID has been based on the fact that they know that the designer is God. The DI even trumpets it as one of its goals:
GOALS: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
What happened to the Intelligent Designer in that phrase? Where’d he go? Well, I don’t where he went but I can tell why he’s not there because the document from which that quote comes from was never intended to be released. And it gives the lie to whole farce. The very people who are front running this whole smoke and mirror exercise have already decided the outcome. Maybe you should write to them and tell them that ‘that determination, however, cannot be made by presumption before the fact, but rather only after pursuing all the evidence to the final determination of where the actual evidence leads us in the end’.
Tell me why you shouldn’t do that, Peter. If you are so keen on zero presumption before the fact, why can’t you hold the DI to that standard?
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status