Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

StephenB,
The point is the demonstrable distinction between ID and creationism
Which is what, exactly?Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, ------"Do I need to remind us all of a certain notorious propaganda tactic pioneered by Herr Schicklegruber and co? [FYI, Mr Kellogg et al, endless repetition -- regardles of how many it misleads -- does not convert slanderous falsehood into truth.]" Well, kairosfocus, while I do agree with you that David will use such tactics as evasion, concentrating on the margins of a point, twisting words, creating new contexts, being irritatingly sarcastic and mocking, etc., and I do agree that you meant to compare tactics and not people, however, I can see David's point of the association being offensive. Let's just characterize the act, by virtue of itself, without bringing in folks like Hitler to use as a comparison, it just tends to offend more than help, and people can see the tactics for themselves without the association of a tyrannical and maniacal killer. It just doesn't help the point at hand, for the association with who is being compared goes way beyond the particular and specific point of the comparison.Clive Hayden_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

DK:
Oh for Pete’s sake. Do you want a careful response or not? There’s enough in that essay to satisfy me but not enough to satisfy you — not that anything could. Anyway, I thought I’d write something that used multiple sources including some material that I’ve read before but don’t have on hand.
I, for one, appreciate your careful approach to scholarship and am certainly willing to wait.specs_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

705 [analyzing] the artical in question.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

----David: "I’m not getting someone else’s analysis, I’m getting other work by Johnson. Learn to read." In other words, you couldn't find anything incriminating in the article you were alluding to, so you are going on a fishing expedition in hopes of finding something else. Or, maybe you are simply not capable of analying the article in question. I vote for all of the above.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Correction: Are you now saying that Michael Behe is NOT guilty of believing that "evidence now points to a supernatural origin for life."StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, what are you talking about? I wasn’t writing about Behe." Well, maybe we can settle something. Are you now saying that Michael Behe is NOT guilty of "believe evidence now points to a supernatural origin for life." As usual, you ignore the substance of the post and cling to a side issue. The point is the demonstrable distinction between ID and creationism, your willful ignorance of the difference, and your continual refusal to even define "creationism," which as I pointed out, Myers did not do.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

If I wanted someone else’s analysis, I would ask that someone else.
I'm not getting someone else's analysis, I'm getting other work by Johnson. Learn to read.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Aren’t you capable of making a single point all by yourself?
Unlike you, when making points about others' writing, I prefer to have their writing at hand.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

"the authors are exhibiting one aspect of creationism. In fact, there is much more to creationism than that." Yes. That's why I wrote "at minimum." I hardly claimed to make a comprehensive definition. You asked for my definition. That's it. Think of it this way. Q. What's non-negotiable about creationism? What's something that distinguishes creationists from others? A. In my view, at the very least, a creationist must think that science “points to a supernatural origin for life.”David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Oh for Pete’s sake. Do you want a careful response or not? There’s enough in that essay to satisfy me but not enough to satisfy you — not that anything could. Anyway, I thought I’d write something that used multiple sources including some material that I’ve read before but don’t have on hand." Aren't you capable of making a single point all by yourself? You can either do analysis or you can't. If I wanted someone else's analysis, I would ask that someone else.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

StephenB, what are you talking about? I wasn't writing about Behe.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg referring to Steven Myers: "The Mystery of Life’s Origin has received so unusual is that its authors believe evidence now points to a supernatural origin for life. The authors are creationists." First, he is not here defining creationism. He is simply alluding to the fact that the authors are exhibiting one aspect of creationism. In fact, there is much more to creationism than that and he would be the first to inform you of that fact. Once again, you are putting words in an author's mouth. Even what he says in this limited context, however, brings your major confusion to light. When Michael Behe, or any ID scienetist, says that he believes the designer is God, he is not saying that he thinks science points to God. He is simply saying that science only points to a designer and that philosophy and theology must bridge the Gap from science to the supernatural. It is your obstinate refusal to make this easy distinction that is causing all the problems. That makes you even more culpable than Judge Jones since the latter was not availed the opportunity to read our FAQ on creationism and ID, which you have, even after all this time, and in an effort to avoid facts in evidence, ignored.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

100% of the words in Judge Jones's decision came from the dictionary. Plagiarist.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

What exactly held you up from responding to the “Establishment of Naturlism essay” in the first place. According to you, there was enough in that article to seal the deal.
Oh for Pete's sake. Do you want a careful response or not? There's enough in that essay to satisfy me but not enough to satisfy you -- not that anything could. Anyway, I thought I'd write something that used multiple sources including some material that I've read before but don't have on hand.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

----Echidna-Levy: "If Judge Jones had rewritten that 90.9% in his own words but with the same meaning would you still be complaining?" Your proper response should be, "I stand corrected. I am sorry that I wasted your time with another trivial and irrelevant response."StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "StephenB, I’ve drafted some on that essay (have you read it yourself? You kept saying my reference was an anti-ID site, but I never sent you to one). My response will include plenty of reference to that “Establishment of Naturalism” essay." That doesn't answer my question. What exactly held you up from responding to the "Establishment of Naturlism essay" in the first place. According to you, there was enough in that article to seal the deal. Why do you need more information or more time to analyze it?StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB
How is it that you are always so far behind the curve. I stipulated a long time ago that the 90.9% number applied to Judge Jones’ decision on the matter of whether ID is science.
If Judge Jones had rewritten that 90.9% in his own words but with the same meaning would you still be complaining?Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

"Anyway, I thought you said that you liked Steven Myers definition, even though he doesn’t define it as a view of science." Yes he does. It's a view of what the scientific evidence can show. That makes it a view of science.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

See my 414:
I think Meyers provides a good working definition: a creationist, at minimum, is someone who thinks that science “points to a supernatural origin for life.”
That's a view of science.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg to jerry: "jerry, yes I do, and I wouldn’t define myself as one. If someone says he’s a creationist, I’ll take his word for it. As I have said before, my view is that a creationist is defined by a view of science, not a view of God." What view is that? Can you elaborate? Anyway, I thought you said that you liked Steven Myers definition, even though he doesn't define it as a view of science. Why don't you simply define a creationist and end all the mystery. Jerry has defined a "creationist," from his perspective. Why don't you do the same? Exactly what "view of science" does a creationist have? You certainly don't hesitate to label folks with that word, so the least you can do is tell us what in the name of sense you are talking about.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Vivid, 680. StephenB, I've drafted some on that essay (have you read it yourself? You kept saying my reference was an anti-ID site, but I never sent you to one). My response will include plenty of reference to that "Establishment of Naturalism" essay. I want to go to the books as well.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

DK:I thought it was a silly reading. I clarified my point above. Where? What number? Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg to vivid: "I don’t have anything to add to 609." You have not responded to vivids coments except to ignore their substance. Both vivid and myself made it quite clear exactly what Behe meant. There is nothing at all equivocal about it. ----"I’m working on my response to your request on Phillip Johnson, but (a) I’m not your servant, and (b) I have a life. As it happens, I’m waiting for a text from the library. If my response is over-long, I’ll post it on my own blog and provide a link for you." Why do you need to go to the library? You sent me to the article in question on line and asked me to read it for myself. Or, is it the case that you finally read the article yourself, realized that there was nothing incriminating about it, and are now on a fishing expedition hoping to find anything that might support your charge.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

I thought I once saw that David Kellogg said he believed in God. (Maybe my eyes betrayed me.) If that is true is David Kellogg a creationist?
jerry, yes I do, and I wouldn't define myself as one. If someone says he's a creationist, I'll take his word for it. As I have said before, my view is that a creationist is defined by a view of science, not a view of God. The Nazi bit of your comment is just asinine.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

vividbleau, It's true that I'm spending too much time here.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

When you have time to make numerous postings on several threads without finding the time to respond to my post 609, which BTW concerned Behe not Johnson,it is a point against you.
I thought it was a silly reading. I clarified my point above. As for Johnson, there are these things called books. We sometimes need to get the books we don't have at hand in order to answer questions responsibly. To do this we borrow from places called libraries. Now, you may not think I use libraries, because you think I act like a Nazi, and Nazis don't like libraries, but you would be wrong.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

If we are going to use the term "creationist," we should define it. Does it refer to the YEC type or the 90% of the world type which thinks some god created the world? Or is the specific reference to a in between category of creationist? The term is very fuzzy and tends to be used as an all purpose pejorative. Sort of like Nazi is. Why isn't communist such an all purpose pejorative because they killed a lot more people than the Nazi's did. I thought I once saw that David Kellogg said he believed in God. (Maybe my eyes betrayed me.) If that is true is David Kellogg a creationist?jerry_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

DK: "For 609 read 605. Also note that Vividbleau had earlier responded responded to my need for time to compose an explanation of my view of Johnson with “No problem.” Now, however, that’s a point against me." When you have time to make numerous postings on several threads without finding the time to respond to my post 609, which BTW concerned Behe not Johnson,it is a point against you. Actually without my prompting you would have just let 609 dissappear into the night if I did not press you on it since you already decided you had not anything to add to it. How long does it take to type one sentence? Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Let me put it another way then. First he tries to locate the "God-friendly" question outside of science, but then he specifically draws it back in to science (via the Big Bang).David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply