Because I never provide anything but evolution-bashing.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=359
BreakPoint Commentaries
Health & ScienceA Passion for Truth
By Chuck Colson
2/6/2007
Darwin Strikes Back
A couple of years ago on this program, I had this to say of the book Doubts about Darwin by my friend Thomas Woodward:
So what pro-ID argument is there?
That article doesn't bash evolution, but it does bash Materialism.
If you throw Materialism out of science then what can one say about anything?
Q: Will the universe continue to expand?
A: Yes, ghosts keep pushing the stars apart.
Q: Why does an acid and base, when combined, produce water and salt?
A: Clearly Leprechaun magic!
Q: How did life on this planet come to be in its present form?
A: An unnamed, indescribable designer who may or may not be aliens or the Christian God.
I just don't see what that gets you... Science rules out the supernatural because it cannot be tested. If you can observe the effects of it, it is no longer supernatural by definition. It does not say that the supernatural does not exist, it just says that if it does exist, we have been unable to observe it in action.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:So what pro-ID argument is there?
That article doesn't bash evolution, but it does bash Materialism.
If you throw Materialism out of science then what can one say about anything?
Q: Will the universe continue to expand?
A: Yes, ghosts keep pushing the stars apart.
Q: Why does an acid and base, when combined, produce water and salt?
A: Clearly Leprechaun magic!
Q: How did life on this planet come to be in its present form?
A: An unnamed, indescribable designer who may or may not be aliens or the Christian God.
I just don't see what that gets you... Science rules out the supernatural because it cannot be tested.
That's not science. That's religion. Your examples are weak, BTW.
They also don't define ID. Lots of people from different perspectives are considering ID...
see below
Quote: If you can observe the effects of it, it is no longer supernatural by definition.
Whose definition? Yours? That's not what other people say. Maybe if you'd stop chasing these red-herrings. Try Lewis' "Miracles" for a more direct treatment. He deals w/ this thinking in the first few chapters.
[quote]Intelligence
I wonder how you can tell if an alien is
DrTorch Wrote:That's not science. That's religion. Your examples are weak, BTW.
My examples are weak? Nice hand waving. Why are they weak?
Quote:They also don't define ID. Lots of people from different perspectives are considering ID...see below
They don't define ID, but you want it taught in schools, that thing that can't be defined... That's my point. How can you teach somethign if not everyone can even agree on what it is?
Quote:Whose definition? Yours? That's not what other people say. Maybe if you'd stop chasing these red-herrings. Try Lewis' "Miracles" for a more direct treatment. He deals w/ this thinking in the first few chapters.
Ok, show me an example of something supernatural that has been examined and verified by science.
Quote:Intelligence
...
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbe...gence.html
So Mr. Adams' definition of intelligence is something that requires intelligence, and that is everything? According to William Dembski intelligence can only be determined by finding the amount of complex specified information contained in something. Mr. Adams says everything is intelligent. Who is right? One of the leaders of the ID movement or the cartoonist?
Quote:Ta dum! See, ID isn't what YOU have prescribed it to be. Maybe if you actually read on the subject...
Of course I don't expect you'll give up. You'll just pretend like you wrote something else, like usual.
I have followed this debate for quite a bit of time now, based on your prompting. I have read
William Dembski's papers and blog for over a year now. You know what I have found? Very little research, lots of poorly constructed logic arguments, and useless analogies. And you tell me that ID isn't what I thought it be at all, in fact it has such a broad definition that I can't really describe it. I just find it exceedingly hard to buy.
Please, please, please ID, do some research and publish it. It can be published online at the variety of websites that are run by ID proponents. I'm sick of reading all the "what if" scenarios and ideas about probability. Some actually biological research is in order. Heck define what ID actually is instead of just letting anyone with any idea say that their particular idea is ID. How can one take something seriously if there are hundreds of "accepted" ideas about what it is?
I won't pretend that I wrote something else. Thanks.