A friendly discussion on evolutionary...
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122 Apr 17, 2013
Gillette wrote:
For me, the wonder is that people like Remy feel that their love of Jesus somehow hinges on espousing this stuff.

I think it is more psycho-dynamic. They have been told (not one actually from the Bible, but rather from religious authorities) that the bible is literal and inerrant. The scientific word disputes that view. They must maintain their belief as cognitive dissonance develops. They come here to argue to decrease their cognitive dissonance. Fairly literally they argue with us to quell the argument going on within themselves.

There is a very high COST (psychological) to changing beliefs. And as long as they have an argument (and it does NOT need to be a GOOD or even rational argument) they don't feel the pressure to change beliefs.

Remember, in their view their whole life and their whole immortal life is predicated upon this belief system. Their friends and family often go to the same church. Their self identity it wrapped up in it.

They are like wild dogs that have been cornered.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#123 Apr 20, 2013
mowg wrote:
<quoted text>
I have said nothing about irreducible complexity. That is not to say that there is no validity to it
The problem with irreducible complexity is that despite claims that it is evidence of ID, no one has been able to come up with a single example of something which is IC.

If the "strongest" evidence for ID is IC and there is no example of IC...

Do the math

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#124 Apr 20, 2013
mowg wrote:
You can't escape having a religious conversation if you mention ID since it is not a scientific field.
I must plainly say that this statement is incorrect. I find it hard to believe that you have taken the time to seriously study this topic if you truly believe this. There have been a number of books and peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design. I would encourage you to read The Design of Life or The Myth of Junk DNA to name a few resources.
You don't have a solid understanding of the history of ID.

ID was crafted by Creationists when Creationism and late "Creation Science" were struck down by the court.

Among the founders of the movement is Dembski, who openly admitted that the "designer" is the "Christian God".

The most perfectly damning evidence of this, however, came out in the Dover Trial where it was pointed out that the earliest version of the "ID" text book "Of Pandas and People" contained the word "Creationists" in many passages. Then, a later version of the book replaced the word "Creationists" with "Design Proponents" without changing the rest of the text. In one instance, the person doing the copy and paste edit messed up and left this gem: "CDesign Proponentists".

When you can replace the subject of a sentence with another subject and it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, then the two subjects are the same thing.

Creationists and Design Proponents and CDesign Proponentists are all the same people selling the same ideology.
Again not to sound mean but either you have chosen not to look at this discussion seriously or you are just trying to make this claim as a tactic against intelligent design. If your motivation is the second then you are stepping out of the realm of the hard sciences.
ID is not a hard science. It's not even a soft science.

Here's why:
#1) There is no definition of "designer".
#2) There is no speculation of a mechanism for design.
#3) There is no means by which to measure design.
#4) No one has attempted an experiment to test design. No one has even suggested an experiment which COULD be done to test design.
Many subjects have religious implications including Darwinian evolutionary biology, astronomy, and philosophy. This does not mean that these subjects cannot be dealt with on their own grounds and avoid religious texts and sources.
Because these fields do not site the religious text as a source of data. Nor do they claim a character from the religious texts as a mechanism.

If Astronomy was based entirely off Greek Mythology to explain how constellations got where they are, then it would not be science.

Intelligent Design is based entirely off the premise that some supernatural force is using an unknowable, undetectable mechanism to create an undefined characteristic called 'design'.
There is a scientific theory, the theory is (There exists natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.) William Dembski.
Dembski has admitted that this "designer" is the Christian god.


AND, he can't point to a single example of even one such natural system which can not be explained through natural causes.

In fact, he can't even define a set of characteristics which would determine if something fit the criteria.

Packwood, IA

#125 Apr 20, 2013
I think Remy/Mowg has fulfilled his student criteria to post here and has moved on to greener pastures (if there ARE any for a "CDesign Proponentist".

Waconia, MN

#126 Thursday Apr 13
Both sides present interesting points.

Evolution clearly has the power of science behind it.

But, it may be a mistake to assume that only one can be correct. Neither contraindicates the other. I can see how both could be true.

I'm not sure why we always stand up to push the idea that makes the most sense instead of considering where there is overlap
Paul Scott

Manassas, VA

#127 Friday Apr 14
mowg wrote:
I have spent the last two months examining intelligent design and evolutionary biology. I would like to start a discussion with one or two people that would be willing to share ideas and challenge each other. I do not want to have a religion conversation but a scientific one. I DO NOT want to engage in a proverbial pissing contest and call people names and dance around the issues. I desire to grow in my knowledge of these two important scientific fields.
Well for a start intelligent design is not a scientific field, it has no merit due to its inherent bias

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 2 min pshun2404 369
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Zeke 67,218
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,955
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web