Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If the horse is dead, why keep beating it?

arroba Email

Here are still two more anti-ID books, recently off the press:






I think, though, people read too much intention into the universe. I think we can make a strong scientific case for life being designed, but the Earth and the Universe are another thing. And it may be that the intentions of the designers were not perfect, nor a reliable guide for us - these are some of the details we have to contend with. Otherwise is Design Theory just going to be a rehash of the same old religious beliefs? I hope not. Is it just me, or are people beating the God/Adam image from the Sistine Chapel to death? There are way too many books out on the market claiming to be the answer to ID... if the horse is supposed to be dead, then why are they still beating it? EJ Klone
No problem, Dave. Actually that was my fault, I'll try to remember to watch my pronouns. That just goes to show the semantic constraints of blind evolution: four bits of mutated information can lead to a deleterious mutation (or a deleted comment). :) Inquisitive Brain
brain Sorry about that. I noticed the comment that got you banned at the time but it wasn't me who did the banning. At your prompting above I checked out your comment history and found nothing at all objectionable in it. I also noted that the one comment that got you banned had a typo that made it look like a gratuitous insult. It was the comment in 13 with one word different in it so it read:
Bill: Darwinists continue their tirade because your own view is meaningless, boring, and is not very helpful in scientific praxis.
My apologies. You're no longer being moderated. DaveScot
**Attention comment moderator** Have I been accidentally banned from UD? I'm not trolling here, please see: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/archives/1938#comment- And my many other comments at UD that are on-topic and productive. Inquisitive Brain
If the horse is dead, why keep beating it?
Darwinists continue their tirade because their own view is meaningless, boring, and is not very helpful in scientific praxis. Inquisitive Brain
How on earth is a series of blind, unplanned, unguided, cold, uncaring accidents on top of accidents in any way meaningful...or for that matter exciting? I find no excitement in a cold, dark universe that will eventually lead to oblivion...no purpose, no plan, no point, no meaning underlying any of it. Furthermore- if you see the world as unplanned, unguided, and purely the result of accidents- why do you even care to do science? Let's study the meaningless void of accidents- whoopee. JasonTheGreek
I will really appreciate that Darwinists show us how IC can evolve by Darwinian mechanisms (oops, I forgot that Ken Miller did that) , or how CSI can arise without intelligence, or at least show us how darwinian gradualism can fit with the fossil evidence instead of attacking ID and personally attacking design theorists. IDist
In the review of the first book "Darwin himself considered the issue of intelligent design, and amassed a mountain of evidence that effectively refuted the idea. " Big talk but I must have missed the evidence. All we have to do is re-read the Orogin and we will all stop coming here to UD. idnet.com.au
"All this constant “Is ID creationism?” talk is just annoying. Will evolutionists just please engage with the arguments?" The ID critic would respond by saying that IDists don't make positive arguments for design but rather negative arguments against evolution. They seem incapable of understanding that the only positive design arguments that can work must rely on the causal inadequacy of naturalistic mechanisms. It's like they have some sort of mental block that won't let them see this. crandaddy
Mattghg, They can't bkz they can't win the scientific debate concerning origins. They know it, and we know it. So, from the darwinian point of view, it's best to avoid the science and stick to religion. In fact, I believe that there is a PT contributor who advises just that: "Stay out of the science! Keep thigns on the religious department." Concerning JSS (John Shelby Spong): he is a "bishop" who advocates that Christians abandon traditional doctrines (Virgin Birth, Miracles of Christ, Inspiration of Scripture, Atoning Death, Bodily Ressurrection, etc) in favor of "other things", if Christianity is to survive. Oh, and he suports same sex marriages. Mats
All this constant "Is ID creationism?" talk is just annoying. Will evolutionists just please engage with the arguments? mattghg
Odd- I see the reviews, and the third review listed from amazon.com is one from John Shelby Spong. It's odd how the ID critics are almost always the first ones to bring up religion! Worse- did you see Spong's comments? He says that you can have Christianity without theism, without supernaturalism, without Jesus as the incarnation. Ummm- no. I'm afraid you certainly can't have CHRISTianity without a risen Christ, as the account of his life would have been based on a lie. Spong, for those who don't know, is a fringe liberal "Christian"...but what concerns me is that they list his review of the book. 1. THEY bring up religion, and 2. 99.9% of Christians wouldn't call him a Christian...so, if they're trying to get Christians into the fold, they won't do it with his review! The second book by Ayala says in the description that ID is creationism. That old canard again. They mention the "Christian right" (oohhhh...scarrrryyy), even tho this site just posted a big thing about former atheist Antony Flew who is supporting ID resources in UK schools (funny- Flew is part of the "Christian right in America"!!!) Honesty is so often not the forte of ID critics. Finally- if one were to look at the amazon.com pages for these two books- the person could easily conclude that Darwinism= atheism. If not atheism then a cold meaningless view of God that is on the edge of deism and no more. Spong's comment that you can have Christianity without theism lends support to the idea that the message is "a world without a personal God is possible with blind, unguided, pointless, accidental, Darwinism...but not much more than deism, IF deism at all." JasonTheGreek
If the horse is dead, why keep beating it?
To gain practice, in case another worse comes along? Mats
Assumingly the horse isn't dead...Here again is another anti-ID article published yesterday in the Toronto Star, "In praise of an alternate creation theory" The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster gains infamy and faith January 07, 2007 Leslie Scrivener-Toronto Star Exerpt: "....Critics say Intelligent Design is the scientific offspring of creationism, a Bible-based belief popular among the religious right in the U.S., but renamed to disguise its Christian agenda. Creationism, with its religious overtones, was being defeated in the U.S. courts – it's unconstitutional to advocate religion in schools – so the more scientific-sounding Intelligent Design theory was promoted." I thought the work of Thaxton, Behe, C. Hunter, Berlinski, Dembski, Denton and Johnson was not based on sacred text. According to this piece my reading comprehension is way off... platolives
Here is the most positive comment I could find in reviews for Ayala's book. "It has a nice cover, though, but for SEM scans I do not like the artificial color technique used. " chunkdz
I'm sure you meant this to be a rhetorical question, but...money? thechristiancynic

Leave a Reply