Jul 9, 2007

Hey, you got earn those stripes first, sparky!

Post-Darwinist : This blog provides stories that Denyse O'Leary, a Toronto-based journalist, has found to be of interest, as she covers the growing "intelligent design" controversy. Does the universe - and do life forms - show evidence of intelligent design? If so, Carl Sagan was wrong and so is Richard Dawkins. Now what?

I suppose being obsolete before you start wouldn't get you to reconsider, would it?

Anyways, not having a clue as to relevance but acting like you know what you are talking about does not make a valid viewpoint, and Michael Behe never in his wildest dreams does this pertain:
Asking the mainstream science community to declare that new discoveries in molecular biology and DNA render materialism inadequate
He wants to talk about supposed incongrueties (that he can't support), yet show him that large, staggering incongruencies in Creationism/ID, and that doesn't mean anything, no retractions, no silently admitting he (you all) doesn't have a point. Yeah, 'scientists' are supposed to cave and fold if presented with (faulty) contrary evidence, but IDers have massive logical inconsistencies and don't 'resign'. Why not? You try to hold scientists to some standard you yourself won't adhere to?

“The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.”
~ Ferdinand Magellan

Let's start where you are supposed to. Prove your point, then use it as an alternative. That is how rational thought works. You have to prove there is a designer, and it had better be a proper theory, then you have some weight behind your claims. Otherwise, quit already, like, the people Behe admoshises about.
Understand this first.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
That there is a designer doesn't even pass the laugh test, let alone have any way of being scientifically' tested.

Here: The creation account in the Bible is clearly not literally true. All physical evidence points against it. For example, it has light being created after the earth and after water. It has creation happening only about 4000 years ago where the geological record shows it has to be much much older. Since God presumably created all the misleading physical evidence, it would seem He does not want us to believe the Genesis account either. Which evidence is more trustworthy, that penned by man or created directly by God? Surely God did not forget how He actually created the universe, and how celestial dynamics work. Why is it then the Old Testament is so full of error on such matters. If you will recall, it claims the earth is square and flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Did God have a temporary lapse of memory while composing the Old Testament? Or did human Biblical authors, in their hubris, imagine their works were of divine origin.

Monday, July 09, 2007 12:32:02 PM

No comments: