Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New intelligent design-friendly Facebook page operated by agnostics focuses on the science


Intelligent design Facebook page operated by agnostics focuses on the science

Intelligent Design – the Official Page is an open Facebook page operated by agnostics and an atheist in an effort to bury the red herrings around the issue of design in life forms. Led by California paralegal Dennis Jones, they’ve recently tacked “Who designed the designer” (= infinite regression) and “What scientific evidence does this group set forth as support for “artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the first initiation of life?” Let’s hope they can keep it an open page (it won’t be trolls’ fault* if they fail) and keep it focused, as per their intention, on science issues.

Anyone can start a thread but Jones says he’ll remove impertinent material, which is a good start.

Salut! From News at Uncommon Descent! Given the number of atheists and agnostics who doubt Darwin (see, for example, “Atheists and agnostics who are not Darwinists”), this is long overdue.

* No one is as religious as the average troll. When the rest of us want to discuss science, he immediately defaults to “Why would God have done it that way?”

Sorry, but no thanks. The author of the page insists on his own definition of ID and his own definition of "evolution", while discouraging open discussion of "Darwinism" because he considers Darwinism to be philosophy not science. That's nice, but what tips me off is that he openly encourages visitors to his page to criticize ID....but not Darwinism. But then he defines evolution according to the proposed mechanisms publicly propagated by academia and accepted by the general public known as "Darwinism". He can't have it both ways. As Darwinism falls, so does the proposed mechanisms for it upon which it is defined (along with the philosophical baggage that accompanies it). However, in denying others the opportunity to criticize Darwinism as it is publicly understood, he is thus insulating his own definition of evolution from critique. I am very skeptical about this FB page. It doesn't seem like a pro-ID website at all, but Darwinism in a cheap tuxedo. Bantay
What's with the "Neo" in "Neo ID" Some "other" ID, other than the real definition of ID? The real ID, as defined by primary ID proponents does open up other scientific fields of research, but it ALSO makes a positive case for ID, which actually refutes Darwinist evolution, natural selection acting on random mutations. Bantay
I rather like the term artificial. It is not the opposite of real but of natural. The definitions usually say "made by humans not natural". That is because they only consider humans as able to design things. ID studies artifacts of intelligent activity. That is why artificial is appropriate. idnet.com.au
The repeated use of the term "artificial intervention" in the group's mission statement doesn't give me much confidence that much of interest is going to get said there. Matteo
Denyse, I see you've already chimed in there. I'm looking forward to reading their (and your) material between episodes of harvesting my crops and collecting rent. ;) CannuckianYankee

Leave a Reply