Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Okay, ID may be taught — But you don’t get to teach it!

William Dembski
December 16, 2005
Education, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The latest edition of Jeffrey Bennett et al’s astronomy textbook The Cosmic Perspective (4th edition) is now out. Sure enough, “intelligent design” is in the index. Indeed, it gets a full page treatment (p. 714). Below is the scan of that page. Does this text provides a fair representation of ID? Hardly. It appears now that ID will indeed be taught in the science curricula of this nation, only ID proponents won’t be doing the teaching. Life is so unfair.

ID in The Cosmic Perspective

Comments
Keith Your argument is trite. You won't be around here much longer if you don't drop the "who designed the designer?" schpiel. You laid it out, it was panned, so move along. You should probably play this game and not bother taking up any of the arguments put forward by the pandas: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinalia/panda-monium.swf The "who designed the designer" argument is considered the lamest and is proffered by the weakest, most easily destroyed panda, The Philospher Panda.DaveScot
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
"But if that were so obvious, everyone would be an IDer" Almost everyone IS an IDer. Are you so out of touch with reality and/or in love with your own thinking so much that you think undirected evolution is a belief of more than a tiny fraction of the population? Wake up and smell the coffee... close to 90% (in the U.S.) don't buy the unguided evolution story. http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#EvolutionDaveScot
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
keiths: "Only if you believe that undirected natural processes, like random mutation followed by natural selection, cannot produce CSI." I see no reason to believe that they can.jay
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
keiths: "Some of my motives in coming to this blog were to meet a cross-section of ID supporters, to find out what they are thinking and why, and to engage in some give-and-take on the subject of ID. This blog is a much better venue for that than a theology class would be." I suspect that your true motive in being on this blog is to try and demonstrate that ID is nothing more than creationism. In other words, it's all ill will. So why don't you 'fess up, and clear out.PaV
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
PaV asks: "And how is this anything different from staring at your navel?" Navel gazing is a meditative activity. Hypothesizing is more of a cognitive process. [PaV then gets into the spirit of things and proposes his own chain argument. See his post.] PaV, I suspect that you already realize what's wrong with your chain argument, but I'll make it explicit anyway. You claim that the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle together imply a supernatural designer. But if that were so obvious, everyone would be an IDer, because that is more or less what the cosmic fine-tuning argument says. PaV editorializes: "This is the idiocy you argue. I’m frankly tired of it." Call me psychic, but I already had a feeling you didn't like it. You're welcome to ignore my posts if you desire. There are plenty of other people on this blog who are willing to engage my arguments. "If you’re so interested in trying out your various ideas about the “designer”, why don’t you take some classes in theology?" Some of my motives in coming to this blog were to meet a cross-section of ID supporters, to find out what they are thinking and why, and to engage in some give-and-take on the subject of ID. This blog is a much better venue for that than a theology class would be.keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
jay asks: "Since human intelligence is certainly capable of generating CSI, doesn’t this make moot the question of whether other highly complex things found in nature qualify as CSI? In other words, doesn’t human intelligence alone disprove Darwinism?" Only if you believe that undirected natural processes, like random mutation followed by natural selection, cannot produce CSI.keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
DaveScot (in post #99): "We only know of ourselves as CSI designers and we aren’t supernatural as far as I know." This sparked an obvious (in hindsight) question that for some reason had never occured to me before: Since human intelligence is certainly capable of generating CSI, doesn't this make moot the question of whether other highly complex things found in nature qualify as CSI? In other words, doesn't human intelligence alone disprove Darwinism?jay
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Hey DaveScot, do you know the identity of MikeGene? Do you blog on his site?Benjii
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
"Life is short; why put yourself through this sort of stress over a weblog?" Your concern is touching but touch someone else with it. "I’ve never seen him explode in a post or a comment" He can't. He's got an image as a classy guy to worry about. I was a sergeant in USMC and even there I stood out for being abrasive. Once in a while I apologize for it but you know the old saying "permission is harder to get than forgiveness".DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
"Dave, you’re a smart guy. You don’t need to fulminate to get your point across. Why not tone it down a little?" I have little patience for stupidity and even less for dishonesty. That's why.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
keiths: "The attributes are free variables. You specify them, determine the observable consequences, and then examine the world to see if it falsifies the specified designer." And how is this anything different from staring at your navel? Since you like "chain" arguments, then if you accept the Big Bang Hypothesis, then going back in time we come to that very first instance of energy. Science doesn't go any farther back, but according to a "causal chain", that energy had to come from somewhere. And since the natural order traces itself only to that first instance of energy, then whoever caused that first instance is, by definition, 'supernatural'. In tandem with the Anthropic Principle, this means that SCIENCE predicts--through a "causal chain"--a 'supernatural designer'. Now what other attributes does this 'supernatural designer' have, according to the Big Bang Theory and the Anthropic Prinicple? None. So, shall we now throw out both the Big Bang Theory and the Anthropic Principle because the 'supernatural designer' is not FALSIFIABLE? This is the idiocy you argue. I'm frankly tired of it. If you're so interested in trying out your various ideas about the "designer", why don't you take some classes in theology?PaV
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Dave Scott: Dude, take it easy, for your own sake. All this anger can't be good for you. I'm quite serious, Dave. This is just a blog, and ID is just a controversial issue. Don't let your pride get wrapped up in this. It's not worth having a heart attack or a stroke over. Life is short; why put yourself through this sort of stress over a weblog? Take a page from Bill Dembski's book. For you and me, this is a hobby of sorts, but he's betting his career on intelligent design, and he's subject to a lot of abuse in the press and on the Web, some of it personal. It's got to be tough, but in the time I've been reading this blog, I've never seen him explode in a post or a comment. Sure, he's got his opinions, but then so do you and I. If you think I'm making a big deal out of this, take a look at the invective you've posted this morning alone: You’re revealing yourself as a bit of an ass... As one ass to another I suggest you shape up before you get shipped out. Now ditch the lame assertion that... You chance worshippers can’t prove your arguments... Or maybe he’s just stupid and says the first stupid thing that enters his mind. If you’ve got tired old crap we’ve already heard take it to Panda’s Thumb... Your incessant insistence...is tiresome, old, unwelcome... Drop it or get lost. Your statement...is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in a while. I’m going to right [sic] you off as some kind of moron. Got it? You’re going down in flames... Dave, you're a smart guy. You don't need to fulminate to get your point across. Why not tone it down a little?keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
"Why is a suitably constrained supernatural entity “beyond the pale” of science?" If it is by definition not amenable even in principle to verification or falsification then it's not science. There is at present no way in principle to track down the source of the design in cellular machinery. The trail goes cold 4 billion years ago when the first cell miraculously appeared on this planet. This in no way negates the evidence of design as that's as concrete as the ground you're standing on. The chemistry to construct a simple cell from non-living matter is well enough understood and in principle can be accomplished without supernatural aid. A simple bacteriophage and a working polio virus have been recreated from non-living matter by working with laboratory equipment (such as a gene splicing machine) using reverse engineering (DNA sequence) data to guide the construction. This was accomplished in the last couple of years. In principle as nanotechnology matures custom design of cellular automata will become routine and it isn't very far in the future at the current pace of advancement in the art. Couple these advances in nanotechnology with space science and it is in principle possible for humanity to custom design life for a wide range of environments and send it packing to another solar system. Again, this is all within well known laws of physics. At this point it's an engineering problem with nothing but time and money as obstacles. Your incessant insistence that ID demands a supernatural creator when nothing actually in evidence needs a supernatural explanation is tiresome, old, unwelcome, and a rather transparent attempt to beat ID through conflating it with religious beliefs. Drop it or get lost.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Keith Actually we knew Renard quite well under the alias "Alan Fox" who managed to persist for about as long as you have so far. I tracked down the connection this morning and alerted the blog owner of the trespass. You chance worshippers can't prove your arguments and eventually the frustration causes you to get nasty, you start flaming people, and Dembski swings the axe. Sometimes if happens sooner if you trot out the trite old arguments early or make really stupid arguments that are no more than unsightly clutter. Renard did this today by saying there's no design plan in embryological development. Presumably he must believe that every embryo just gets lucky in that it matures into an organism nearly identical to its parent since there's no plan in the germ cells for that outcome. Or maybe he's just stupid and says the first stupid thing that enters his mind. We learned from Alan it's the latter. You for a while avoided the dogmatic assertion that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo but eventually it came out. That dog won't hunt, it's been (how did you put it in the Buchanan thread?) convincingly refuted and we can hardly believe that you're trotting it out again. That's that kiss of death around here. If you've got a new argument to make, make it. If you've got tired old crap we've already heard take it to Panda's Thumb where they welcome those comments.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
PaV asks: "Do you want me to also explain why water isn’t wine?" No. I'd like you to answer my question instead of dodging it. Why is a suitably constrained supernatural entity "beyond the pale" of science? "Is the purpose of ID, and the identification of CSI, to make predictions about the ‘designer’?" No. The purpose of ID is to infer the operation of an intelligent cause (i.e. a designer) from certain phenomena in nature. The identification of CSI is Dembski's suggestion for how this can be done (and a valid one if Dembski is correct that CSI cannot be generated by undirected natural causes). The fine-tuning argument and Behe's IC argument are two other ways to do it, if you accept their premises. "To suggest that the scientific method can be applied to that which, by definition, transcends the natural order, is complete absurdity. Why can’t you see that and accept that?" Because you haven't even attempted to supply an argument in support of your contention. You just keep telling me that I'm being absurd. Where did you get the idea that simply repeating an opinion without justifying it is persuasive? By itself, the fact that a supernatural designer is transcendent does not mean that the designer's behavior is completely unpredictable and outside the scope of the scientific method. If you specify the attributes of the designer sufficiently (as I did in the Paul Nelson example), then you can predict certain observable consequences in the world. If those consequences do not obtain, then the specified designer does not exist. In the Paul Nelson example, the specified designer would not create the earth and the universe with the appearance of great age, nor would it allow another entity to "plant evidence" to make it look that way. Therefore, if we find (as we do) that the earth appears to be billions of years old, we know that Paul Nelson's specified designer does not exist. "Here’s your logic: CSI is an indicator of intelligence. The fact that only intelligence can give rise to CSI, coupled to the fact that CSI was present before human intelligence existed, indicates the presence of some pre-existent, powerful intelligence. If one attempts to trace this back in time, the only conclusion possible is that an intelligence outside of the natural order is responsible for the CSI that is seen within the natural order. Hence ID, the movement that describes and formulates CSI, must, as a consequence of its formulations, propose a “supernatural” designing intelligence." That's pretty darn close. You're starting to get it. My only significant quibble would be to point out that all of this depends on the truth of Dembski's assertion that CSI can only be produced by intelligence. This is not a "fact", as you say, but a hypothesis. "This is not outlandish thinking–only unneccesary thinking." Thank you. Coming from you, that's high praise indeed. "It’s NOT necessary to propose a “supernatural” designer in order for ID to be a scientific theory within the natural order." I'm not proposing a supernatural designer. Dembski's CSI hypothesis logically DEMANDS a supernatural prime designer (via the 'designer chain' argument). "Either CSI is an indicator of design–the use of intelligence in this world, or it is not!" That's right. The assertion must either be true or false. But it is wrong to think that the designer hypothesis is falsified simply because we discover an undirected natural process which creates CSI. Why? Because finding such a process does not mean that EVERY instance of CSI is produced by the process. A supernatural prime designer could still be responsible for some of the instances of CSI, and is therefore not falsified by the existence of the natural process. And, as I mentioned before, the IC argument and the fine-tuning argument do not fall simply because the CSI argument does, so there is still a basis for asserting the designer hypothesis. "You now insist that for the insights of ID to be validated, it must predict certain attributes of this “supernatural” designer that are falsifiable in the natural order." No. I said that in order for the designer hypothesis to be falsifiable, ID supporters must specify additional attributes of the supernatural prime designer. This is completely different from saying that ID itself must predict those attributes. The attributes are free variables. You specify them, determine the observable consequences, and then examine the world to see if it falsifies the specified designer. "...I can’t help you." As Renard said, you can help me by addressing my arguments instead of evading them.keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Renard, We hardly knew ye. So long.keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Renard (who is no longer with us): "PaV, Keiths is debating with you. To “help” you would need to address his arguments." Renard, you can't debate with a lunatic. His assertions are lunatic assertions.PaV
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
I was debating when to lower the boom on Renard. It seems that this is an appropriate time. --WmADWilliam Dembski
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Renard a.k.a. Alan Fox The jig is up buddy. Time to change your name again if you wish to continue chatting with the intelligent crowd. Sayonara sucker.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Renard "“Instructions” is misleading in the same way as “blueprint” as there is no overall design plan directing embryological development." A helluva conincidence that human eggs consistently turn into humans absent a plan, isn't it? Your statement that there is no overall design plan is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. That there's a design plan for a human being in a human egg is a self-evident truth and if you don't have the common sense to recognize that I'm going to right you off as some kind of moron. Got it?DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
KeithS "If you accept these premises, then the ‘designer chain’ argument shows that the ‘prime designer’ must be supernatural." Are you under the impression that if you repeat this bit of illogic enough times it will become logical? It's a non sequitur. The prime designer, once understood, becomes a part of nature. It's quite possible we'll never identify a prime designer. That doesn't necessarily make it supernatural. We may never understand what's outside the observable universe or what preceded the big bang. That doesn't make the non-observable universe or what preceded the big bang supernatural, it just makes it beyond the realm of observable phenomenon. Now ditch the lame assertion that ID requires a supernatural intelligent agent.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
KeithS You're revealing yourself as a bit of an ass with an agenda counter to that of the blog owner's. Assholiness is only tolerated when the agenda parallels the blog owner's. As one ass to another I suggest you shape up before you get shipped out. Unless of course getting shipped out doesn't bother you.DaveScot
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
In comment #87 Logan enquires (tongue in cheek) How come you guys haven’t been banned yet? The Panda’s Thumb people insist that anyone who dissents from Prof. Dembski on this blog gets banned. Dough needs a little yeast to make it rise, or the result is unappetising.Renard
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
offtopic/to be followed by ID statement at end. Keiths, I am sorry you lost your faith. I pray you find it again as should we all on here. Our Father loves us all. It is usually we who get in the way of His love. He never told us there would not be consequences for turning away from him. Nor did he ever say it would be easy. Nor did He say that his ways are easily understood at all times. I'll post a statement on ID at the end of this post. But I feel you are misunderstanding the content of the Bible and I want to respond to you fully. I don't pretend to understand all verses of the Bible myself and reasonable people can disagree. The Torah is based on old Hebrew text and customs passed down for generations and really unless one is a Hebrew Scholar, Talmud Scholar and studies all the Jewish traditions, idioms and nuanced meanings of words, characters and even numbers, it is very difficult at times to understand all the meaning behind the history and the revelations put forth to the people in Moses time. I must stress also that one cannot separate the Father from the Son. One cannot look at the New Testament without the Old. To do so would allow room for gross misinterpretations. One complements the other both as law and as prophecy. Christ himself always pointed back to the Torah, the prophets and the Psalms. He did not hesitate to say how the Father loved us, nor did he hesitate to warn of dire consequences should we turn away from him. The English translation often loses the original meaning put forth thousands of years ago. I try to be very careful in difficult areas. I don't always get it right the first time and I am still learning. I thought Benji did a good job of rebutting your arguments regarding slavery and you did not respond to him fully within the context that he quoted to you. You simply brushed him off with sarcastic comment when he gave full accounts. Instead you only responded farther down to one comment about women captives. Maybe you just forgot to respond to his earlier arguments about slavery? First to the tribes of Israel and to Abraham slavery was viewed quite diffently across cultures. You cannot equate what we understand as slavery today to those of yesterday in generalized terms. Many looked upon it as endentured servants. This is when people willfully went to work for others in turn for rewards, land, wives. Remember, Jacob himself did this for Rachal at first for 7 years, then again. So, people were not considered - 'slaves' as you put it then the way our modern age looks at it. You must make distinctions of the times and cultures. Remember the context always, Israel just came out of slavery and captivity from the Egyptians in which they were mistreated and abused. Remember Joseph was sold himself to the Egyptians. Many of the Israelite tribes had actively took on the rituals of the Egyptian and honored pagan gods. At this time and prior to this mankind treated with abuse those they captured either by war or owned through markets. Women were often treated cruelly and as property, with less value than a good camel. It always helps to put things in perpective of the times. As an aside, lets also remember the story of Joseph as a lesson. As a result of him being a good servant - he arose to become the second highest in power behind the Pharoh in all the land of Egypt. God teaches us lessons everywhere if we look for them. Christ himself encouraged us if we were ever captured to still love our enemy. Yes, it is difficult. The Torah and the Laws put forward were quite radical at the time and is a large step forward in freedom whether you recognize it as such or not Keith. Agains, the context. The quote is about having gone to war against an enemy. Up to this point and time in history, Victors captured all the spoils and killed, raped, sold anyone captured as property, abused the women over and over again, and pillaged the village usually destroying all of its inhabitants and stealing all the property - women being property. There was no such thing as mercy. Certainly, no one wrote into law mercy for ones enemy. The very quote you dislike is a law which states to show mercy to those captured. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her; - after marriage that is or if prior to marriage during the month long rituals the man loses interest then thou shalt let her go whither she will; - this was done by a writ of divorce as the Targum(of Jonathan) explains. The Targum came about due to the decline of the Hebrew language and is an Aramaic interpretation which included explanations to the original Hebrew text of the Torah. Few understand that the Hebrew language almost died out back during that time. - a writ of divorce is fairly radical concept at the time considering even today how women are treated in many countries, what exactly do you find fault with writ of divorce? - also, this text could apply to the fact the man's affections may have cooled toward the captive, in this case he had no right to hold her, sell her or mistreat her. What exactly do you find so repulsive about freeing a woman that had been captured in an enemy camp? She was not to be his servant. This is clearly what it is stating. but thou shalt not sell her at all for money; - he had no right to profit from her if he had intended to marry her and had obliged her to marital rites. or, if he was not going to marry her, he could not make money either, he must release her. What is wrong with this concept? thou shalt not make merchandise of her; - same thing, he cannot treat her as property or as quoted online from searchgodsword.com, "neither make any gain of her by selling her to another, nor retain her in his own service, nor make use of her as a slave; so Jarchi says, that in the Persian language they call service by this word, and which also he says he learnt from an eminent writer of theirs, R. Moses Hadarsan; with which Maimonides agrees, who explains it, shall make no use of her service, or serve himself by her; he should have no profit by her, either by sale, or servitude" because thou hast humbled her; - note that humbled can be many interpretations, "afflicted" being one of them, but I'd be careful to assign the meaning of intercourse so easily because the Torah also taught Israel not to do so before marriage. Instead this is just as likely to mean that since she has been captured during battle, then required to follow religious marital rites and then you decide to 'disown' her, does not give you the right to sell, make a profit or treat as property. This is a huge step forward during the time and culture where man traded women slaves every day in cultures far and wide, or they just stole them, raped them and murdered them. In fact, it was the custom of some to rape a woman so she 'would have to marry'. In fact, this happens even today in some cultures. Are you not aware of it? So, here is God saying, when you battle against your enemy, you must treat the women you capture with dignity and release them if you do not plan to marry or if you desire to not be married, then you must let her go freely and not treat her as a 'slave' or as property. The idea here is one of mercy after a battle with an enemy. If the man who captured the woman had married her, then decided he no longer wanted her, then he must give her a writ of divorce and he had no right to treat her as a slave. This actually goes far in showing mercy to enemy captives during that day and age. What exactly do you not understand about the times and the fact that this was a radical departure from most customs back then? Women, children, young men were routinely sacrificed to the 'pagan gods' back then. I hope you rethink your opposition to our Father's ways. ?He was not in favor of making people slaves. He gave men free will. They then went nuts, violent, sexual orgies and then he wiped them off the planet and started over again. So, you disagree? OK, it is your right and choice. You may not fully understand eveything that was happening in history at the time. Massive orgies, sexual feast, and human sacrfices were common back then. God from what we understand today warned people over and over again before taking action. Even after appearing to Moses, after scaring all the people in the desert by his voice, they asked not to be in His presence again. They asked that Moses talk to him for them - they were to afraid. Then - guess what, after so many years - they stop believing again. Go figure - we have short attention spans. In fact, God throughout the history of man has listened to people. Abraham asked him to save Soddom and Gomorah if there were any innocents. He sent messengers, removed Lot and then destroyed the cities. Now, you may disagree with this tactic, but that does not determine if God is real. That is a whole other question really. Really Keith, much of your arguments have been answered in the Bible by conversations through Job and in books like Isaiah. Don't you remember you are the clay? God is the Potter? You are being molded Keith - to do great things if you will just allow God in your heart and trust his will for you. Its really that simple in a way, but very difficult in other ways. God allows you to argue with him, even rant at him, yell at him. Job grew angry at God, so did Moses and Jacob. In fact, many people of the Bible were angry at God or disobeyed and he did not strike them dead. He recognizes whats in your heart. So, go ahead, talk to him like a friend. It was the best advice ever given to me by my Great Uncle. Stop thinking you cannot talk to him even if you think he is immoral. He'll listen. The truth is Keith, had you lived back then do you really know what you would have done to women and other people? How is it so easy for you to judge? Who is to say that you would not be some killer? Maybe some ruthless Tyrant wannabe? Some person who believed in 'pagan gods' that required sacrifice of little babies? Truth is you cannot answer that quetion. You truly don't know do you? You are judging God because you do not fully understand the nature of the first sin and of sin today, the reason we are here, our purpose and you 'see through the glass darkly'. You don't have patience. Renard was wrong. In fact you lack patience and understanding. Instead of trying to seek out the truth of God's mercy, you look to see only the bad and point it out to others. But in fact, what I just showed you is that God instructed Israel at that time to have mercy. Would you have done the same back then? Do you really think yourself so omniciently well informed? Where did you learn right from wrong Keith? Instead you show indignation and self-righteous judgement of others just as easily as anyone else on here. And from what I read you misrepresent yourself. In one of your first post you stated clearly, "The God who gave those commands is immoral. The God of the Old Testament is not worthy of worship by people of conscience." You then turned around and stated, "I do think that most Christians are men and women of conscience. I grew up as a Lutheran, my grandfather was a minister in the church, and my mother is still practicing. I have many friends and relatives who are Christian. These are good folks, and I resent Josh’s cheap attempt to imply that I doubt the strength of their consciences." note: you state first that 'the God of the Old Testament is not worthy of worship by - people of conscience. You then turn around and state the very opposite of what you said the fist time, "I do think most... Christians are men and women of conscience." So, which is it Keith? Most - meaning only those who believe in the New Testament? Therefore you imply and paint with a wide brush by these very words that all people who believe in God of the Old Testament, the one who created the 10 commandments are people who have 'no conscience'. There is no other way to read your statement Keith. I'm not saying that your evil or a bad person. You seem like a very reasonable person. I'm sure you treat people very good having been raised in a Christian home you understand that most Christians are decent people, or try to be. Lord knows I mistreated people much worse in my lifetime - Christians in fact when I lacked faith. I'm just simply pointing out that what you said was incorrect both times. So, please take no offense. And also, try not to be so offended by your Creator. He'll listen to you anytime, anywhere. Job, Jacob, Moses, Abraham, they all had their doubts and arguments with him. You know, even our Savior, Yeshua asked for God to take the cup away from him, but he followed the will of the Father. Really, that is what he ask of us, to carry the cup, to feed and clothe the hungry, to visit those held captive, not just in prison, but those who are depressed, sick, unstable and lost. God did something special Keith. He sent a part of himself here on earth with a clear message, Love and Mercy above all - these are the clearest teachings of His Son, love your wife by giving your life to her, love your neighbor by picking them up when they're hurt and down, love your enemy Keith, who else but a God of love would say such a thing as this? He gave us free will. Men took it and abused it over and over again. So, at times he peeked into our world, he spoke to us through Israel, through their prophets, through Moses, Elijah, Yeshua His Son. It does not mean that God does not get angry and as a Creator when he sent his prophets, warned the people over and over again they did not listen. Finally, he gives us a record of what happens when his people do not listen. It is now clearly written for all to see. There are no excuses for those who have read and heard his word. We know we die. What he has told us however is if we believe, to die is gain, to live is Christ - in us. Yes, you can deny him. It is your choice. But it does not vanish him from existence, quite the opposite. Whether people think this to be foolish or not is really not ours to worry on about except that we are to spread the good news. One only need to look at the true wisdom passed down. He does not ask you to understand all things fully Keith, not in this life. That is for a life yet to come. Having tried it without his love, I understand the difference now. Now, as to ID. The science of ID does not require us to identify God of the Torah and Yeshua. You and others can try to twist this as much as you like. But ID is not required to answer such questions. No more than science itself can answer such questions. I have every right to follow the evidence, talk about it, discuss it and furthermore demand that the schools I pay for with my taxes are open to free speech as protected in the constitution. Currently there is a some misleading arguments put forth by such organizations like the ACLU who put forth myth as law. The constitution does not forbid ID as a science to be taught as scientific hypotheses. Currently, I don't believe it should be taught as fact or as robust science since it has not matured enough to the point of full and open study for the high school levels. However, I fully expect institutions of higher learning, universities which want to maintain the highest level of competition will eventually look to and accept Design Engineering of Biological Life forms as appropriate context for student study and full blown research. Today, as I post... 10 institutions have accepted from Howard Hughes Medical Institute grants to allow for hybridization across departments for increased technological achievements. It is only natural that universities take these steps. They must if they're to remain competitive in the Engineering of life forms. Let me make it clear. One cannot intelligently re-engineer a life form that did not have previous intention, supported by sustainable laws on all levels micro and macro, directed towards specific outcomes and contain information rich code - which could be easily collected, observed, understood, codified, translated, analyzed, and finally modified with subtle changes, eventually wholesale changes, or transferrable to new technology. We are put here to discover, to grow, to learn for a reason. What we do with that time is essential to our future. Regardless of whether we like how our Creator formed us or communicated to us what will be. The fact is we are here now to make a decision. Please see the link here as of November 22, where the new direction of design is taking us.... http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=35Michaels7
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
Davescot Sorry to hear about the CTS. Once we have served our basic purpose of passing on our genes, our bodies just fall apart. "Instructions" is misleading in the same way as "blueprint" as there is no overall design plan directing embryological development. Semantics can be boring, but agreeing on the meaning of words can reduce the misunderstandings that almost inevitably arise, this thread being one example. Re "Panspermia". I agree that it extends time and space for abiogenesis. It widens the opportunity for speculation, but the ultimate question of origin remains. Fascinating, all the same.Renard
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
PaV says to keiths "...I can't help you." PaV, Keiths is debating with you. To "help" you would need to address his arguments.Renard
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
PaV:“That you think the scientific method can be applied to the ethereal as well as to the natural is simply beyond the pale.” keiths: Same thing here. You keep repeating this, but you don’t explain why it’s true. How about offering a reason this time around? Do you want me to also explain why water isn't wine? keiths: "CSI doesn’t predict any other attributes. That’s precisely the problem. The attributes it does predict aren’t enough to make the designer hypothesis falsifiable. ID supporters need to specify more attributes if they want it to be falsifiable." Is the purpose of ID, and the identification of CSI, to make predictions about the 'designer'? Has anyone stated this? Does this make any sense at all? To suggest that the scientific method can be applied to that which, by definition, transcends the natural order, is complete absurdity. Why can't you see that and accept that? Here's your logic: CSI is an indicator of intelligence. The fact that only intelligence can give rise to CSI, coupled to the fact that CSI was present before human intelligence existed, indicates the presence of some pre-existent, powerful intelligence. If one attempts to trace this back in time, the only conclusion possible is that an intelligence outside of the natural order is responsible for the CSI that is seen within the natural order. Hence ID, the movement that describes and formulates CSI, must, as a consequence of its formulations, propose a "supernatural" designing intelligence. This is not outlandish thinking--only unneccesary thinking. It's NOT necessary to propose a "supernatural" designer in order for ID to be a scientific theory within the natural order. This is a plain, and simple, statement of fact. Either the Law of the Conservation of Information is true, or untrue, in this world! Either CSI is an indicator of design--the use of intelligence in this world, or it is not! Science has no power to transcend the natural order, and any suggestion to the contrary is sheer, and utter, hubris. But your "logic" doesn't stop with simply insisting that CSI postulates a "supernatural" designer. No. You now insist that for the insights of ID to be validated, it must predict certain attributes of this "supernatural" designer that are falsifiable in the natural order. What kind of whacky approach to testing a theory is this? If you can't see the absurdity of this proposal of yours, then I can't help you.PaV
December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
PaV writes: "After telling you over and over that your argument is silly and absurd–except, apparently, to you–you keep at it." Yes, you keep telling me that my argument is absurd, but you never justify the claim. "That you think the scientific method can be applied to the ethereal as well as to the natural is simply beyond the pale." Same thing here. You keep repeating this, but you don't explain why it's true. How about offering a reason this time around? Regarding my tongue-in-cheek NFL example: "Am I suppose to take this seriously?" The details, no. The principles, yes. "What other attributes does CSI predict of the ‘prime designer’? There’s obviously ‘intelligence’; there’s obviously the ‘power’ to act upon natural components. What else is there to add?" CSI doesn't predict any other attributes. That's precisely the problem. The attributes it does predict aren't enough to make the designer hypothesis falsifiable. ID supporters need to specify more attributes if they want it to be falsifiable. Since you apparently didn't follow the NFL example, let me try another more probable one. DI Fellow Paul Nelson is, to the best of my knowledge, a young-Earth creationist. Let's assume the following: 1. He believes that God inspired the writing of the Bible so that it is literally true, and therefore that creation took place over a period of six days within the last 10,000 years. 2. He believes that God would not deceive us by making the earth and the universe appear older than they are, nor allow any other agent to do so. The addition of these two attributes makes Paul Nelson's God falsifiable. All you have to do is find solid evidence that the earth and universe are older than 10,000 years. If you do, you know that Paul Nelson's God does not exist. Other people within the ID movement have different conceptions of God, so their chosen attributes would be different. As I've mentioned before, this is one of the reasons that ID supporters don't want to specify more attributes: doing so could cause a splintering of the "Big Tent" alliance between anti-evolutionists of varying beliefs.keiths
December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Benjii, 3:02 PM: This is my last post concerning this topic. Benjii, 6:54 PM: I said I was not going to talk about this issue. But in a sense, I lied. In a sense? But you made it almost four hours. That's actually longer than I thought you would last. On to your post: Benjii quotes Deuteronomy: "In Deuteronomy 21:10-14 it states: “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. YOU MUST NOT SELL HER OR TREAT HER AS A SLAVE, SINCE YOU HAVE DISHONORED HER [Emphasis Added]." Benjii, reread the passage. It's saying that if you reject her as a wife (thus dishonoring her), then you may not sell her or treat her as a slave. If you decide to keep her, she can't go. The NKJV translation makes this absolutely clear: "And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her." And in any case, you're forcing a woman to marry you against her will, with God's explicit permission. Does that strike you as moral? "Scholars have noted that this benevolence towards women is unparralled in the ancient world." This is God we're talking about. He's not supposed to be merely better than the other guys in the ancient world, he's supposed to be morally perfect. Benjii then quotes Jeremiah 34 as a demonstration of "God’s intent for freedom" and his "attitude toward permanent servitude." Unfortunately, Benjii seems to have missed this verse: "Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage." Benjii, do you think slavery is okay as long as the slaves aren't Hebrew?keiths
December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
keiths: "Outside of the quotations, there are 11 sentences in your post. I counted up the ad hominems, pejoratives and just plain rudenesses in these 11 sentences and found 13 of them. That gives you a Bitterness Quotient (BQ) of 13/11 * 100 = 118, which puts you in the Gifted range. Well done." You're THQ (Take a Hint Quotient) is obviously very low. In fact, it's 0/13 * 100= 0. After telling you over and over that your argument is silly and absurd--except, apparently, to you--you keep at it. That you think the scientific method can be applied to the ethereal as well as to the natural is simply beyond the pale. You wrote: "Suppose that I claim that God is omnipotent, and that he has pledged to perform the following miracle without fail: Anytime someone dumps some table salt on a piece of black paper, then waves a copy of “No Free Lunch” over it for more than 10 seconds, the salt grains will rearrange themselves, just like iron filings under the influence of a magnetic field, to spell out “ID is True!” Am I suppose to take this seriously? You wrote to Josh, saying: "Let me spell it out for you, Josh. ID says that there are things in nature which require an intelligent cause. Bill Dembski says that CSI requires an intelligent cause. If you accept these premises, then the ‘designer chain’ argument shows that the ‘prime designer’ must be supernatural." For the sake of the (absurd) argument you want to make, let's suppose that, in this 'designer chain', the implication of CSI is that a 'supernatural designer' must exist, then let me ask you this--to show the futility of your argument--what other attributes does CSI predict of the 'prime designer'? There's obviously 'intelligence'; there's obviously the 'power' to act upon natural components. What else is there to add?PaV
December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 … 7

Leave a Reply