Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent Design'

May 30, 2013 Full story: Breitbart.com 453

Novelist Stephen King went on National Public Radio, of all places, and spoke openly about God and how he believed everything about the universe suggests it is a product of intelligent design.

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#365 Jun 15, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ninety percent of Americans are creationists so the joke is on you.
""I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
ex-atheist Dr Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.
No, it's less than 50% now, just barely. Your appeal to popularity is not only a fallacy, it's a failure.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#366 Jun 18, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess promising in is the mind of the beholder.
'The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they're making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural. This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!
*Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.
McCombs makes a number of obvious errors here. We will skip right past the fact that his arguments are more about aboigenesis than evolution. But the major error is tje sharpshooter fallacy, the idea that life had to start with a series of highly specific and well organised processes in parallel. This is not how biologists regard it at all. On the contrary, we kmow that even randomly assembled RNA sequences show catalytic activity in 10% of cases etc. The first self replicator could be extremely inefficient compared to anything alive today after billions of years of natural selection. Next it is not even controversial that random mutation and natural selection can create new information without design. We can set up genetic algorithm programs that do it routinely. And no the computet substrate in that example is not relevant. Really all your friend is doing is parroting the same tired and debunked arguments that scientists dismissed decades ago.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#367 Jun 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
McCombs makes a number of obvious errors here. We will skip right past the fact that his arguments are more about aboigenesis than evolution. But the major error is tje sharpshooter fallacy, the idea that life had to start with a series of highly specific and well organised processes in parallel. This is not how biologists regard it at all. On the contrary, we kmow that even randomly assembled RNA sequences show catalytic activity in 10% of cases etc. The first self replicator could be extremely inefficient compared to anything alive today after billions of years of natural selection. Next it is not even controversial that random mutation and natural selection can create new information without design. We can set up genetic algorithm programs that do it routinely. And no the computet substrate in that example is not relevant. Really all your friend is doing is parroting the same tired and debunked arguments that scientists dismissed decades ago.
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#368 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
What should carry more weight in the arguement (sic), you, a clearly biased PhD Chemist, or the 159,000 members of the "American Chemical Society"?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...

American Chemical Society supports teaching evolution in K-12

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 –– The American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, is reiterating its call for evolution to be included in the K-12 science curricula at an “age-appropriate level,” because it is “central to our modern understanding of science.”

“Evolution is a well-established, central scientific concept,” said William F. Carroll, Jr., Ph.D., ACS president.“In the proper context, students should be exposed to a wide diversity of ideas to help them shape their own opinions. But they should get a solid understanding of science from their science teachers through a full and robust scientific curriculum. Evolution is the proven scientific model that we should be teaching in the science classroom.

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization, chartered by the U.S. Congress, with a multidisciplinary membership of more than 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers. It publishes numerous scientific journals and databases, convenes major research conferences and provides educational, science policy and career programs in chemistry. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#369 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
How about the biologists that we quote from?

Patents show that he is clever in regards to developing new chemicals. It in no way shows that he is clever when it comes to biology.

There is an amazing dearth of biologists when it comes to creationism. It is a small fraction of a percent. Since evolution is mostly a biological science that means you are using the fringe of the fringe. In other words you are relying on certifiable nuts to support your side.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#370 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
Since that chemist doesn't know the difference between evolution and biogenesis, yeah, the chemist's words on the matter are meaningless.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#371 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
20 patents for Eastman Kodak, and a second career actively advancing the theology of creationism? I'd go with someone who hasn't been huffing frankincense scented developer chemicals

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#372 Jun 18, 2013
What a bunch of religious lunatics.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#373 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
What a bunch of religious lunatics.
Yes, you people are.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#374 Jun 18, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What should carry more weight in the arguement (sic), you, a clearly biased PhD Chemist, or the 159,000 members of the "American Chemical Society"?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...
American Chemical Society supports teaching evolution in K-12
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 –– The American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, is reiterating its call for evolution to be included in the K-12 science curricula at an “age-appropriate level,” because it is “central to our modern understanding of science.”
“Evolution is a well-established, central scientific concept,” said William F. Carroll, Jr., Ph.D., ACS president.“In the proper context, students should be exposed to a wide diversity of ideas to help them shape their own opinions. But they should get a solid understanding of science from their science teachers through a full and robust scientific curriculum. Evolution is the proven scientific model that we should be teaching in the science classroom.
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization, chartered by the U.S. Congress, with a multidisciplinary membership of more than 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers. It publishes numerous scientific journals and databases, convenes major research conferences and provides educational, science policy and career programs in chemistry. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
Have your chemical society explain how life started from chemicals. Which was what the PHD was explaining couldn't have happened.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#375 Jun 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Have your chemical society explain how life started from chemicals. Which was what the PHD was explaining couldn't have happened.
Your PHD person said it could not happen by chance, and that is accurate, since chemistry is not ruled by chance. With the correct chemicals and bases it could happen without "guidance."

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#376 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your PHD person said it could not happen by chance, and that is accurate, since chemistry is not ruled by chance. With the correct chemicals and bases it could happen without "guidance."
So there is not a chance that you are completely loony, it is fact huh? LMAO

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#377 Jun 19, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
Argument by authority is not your friend, considering that 99.85% of qualified biologists support evolution. In other words, we could parade out a massive list of biologists just named Dave that would dwarf any "creation scientist" list you can muster.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, scientific arguments do not rest on the credentials of the source but on the quality of the evidence and logic. If his logic is flawed, who cares what his qualifications are?

I have shown you why his logic is flawed - its based on a mis-representation of the earliest life as requiring a higher degree of specificity than biologists regard as necessary.

If you cannot understand the point and have to revert to argument by authority, you have already lost. Why not look at the actual point?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#378 Jun 19, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who should carry more weight in the arguement ,you or a PHD chemist with 20 patents?
Whoops I said Dave. How about Steve?

"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.[4]

The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[5] As of May 14, 2013, Project Steve has 1,273 signatories.[5]"

In case you missed it, that is 1,273 signatories, scientists only.

Here is the statement they signed:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#379 Jun 19, 2013
The real answer is in the Bible as to how it happened. God created everything by his Word and then he created man to have dominion over his good earth. Death came into to the world when the first man and his woman disobeyed the Creator. Everything that is living now will die but certain ones have seed within indviduals that will reproduce following patterns of the original kinds chosen and instructions are given within the makeup of each kind as to how they are to be fruitful and multiply.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#380 Jun 19, 2013
Our Creator is not just super intelligent, he is the maker of all things that are intelligent and he gives everything instructions as to how to function in our material world though shown patterns.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#381 Jun 19, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The real answer is in the Bible as to how it happened. God created everything by his Word and then he created man to have dominion over his good earth. Death came into to the world when the first man and his woman disobeyed the Creator. Everything that is living now will die but certain ones have seed within indviduals that will reproduce following patterns of the original kinds chosen and instructions are given within the makeup of each kind as to how they are to be fruitful and multiply.
This .... answers nothing.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#382 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
This .... answers nothing.
WHAT? This answers everything as to the hows and whys and wherefores.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#383 Jun 19, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>WHAT? This answers everything as to the hows and whys and wherefores.
No it does not. You just made up an answer to the "who," and that's not useful at all.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#384 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No it does not. You just made up an answer to the "who," and that's not useful at all.
It IS useful if you want to understand reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min TurkanaBoy 127,993
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 min KAB 139,629
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 23 min TurkanaBoy 105
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 175,487
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Thu Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE