Video: What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 22, 2013

News}

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

Comments

@ecs2 #30 ID theory is dehumanising because it follows similar methods to those employed in the ideology of methodological naturalism (while at the same time railing against MN as an ideology of atheists and non-believers). It seeks as a theory to operate only in the natural sciences, not in the human-social sciences (or social sciences and humanities, in American terms). Its main fields are biology, cosmology and palaeontology. When people speak of archaeology or forensics as examples of ID ‘detection’ methods, they always carefully fail to mention that it is human beings who are the ‘designers’ of the objects in question. And because it is human beings who are the ‘designers,’ that distinguishes ID theory categorically from OoL, OoBI and human origins because human beings are/were not the ‘designers’ of that so-called ‘design/Design.’ IDists fundamentalistically concentrate only on the ‘design’ itself, divorced from the reality that every ‘design’ is ‘designed’ by a ‘designer’ using a ‘designing process’ because they say they cannot or will not discuss the ‘designer’ since they are *only* interested in proving/inferring that an object was ‘designed.’ This is why they run away from any talk of ‘designing processes,’ wherein the ‘designers’ can (and in recent times must) themselves be studied. That’s ID theory’s ‘historical/deep past quasi-science’ run-and-hide strategy when it comes to human beings as (more than just) ‘designers.’ In other words, IDists don’t really allow a human being to be a human being, who is not only a rational calculating device, but also an intuitive, emotional person, with feelings, thoughts, reflections and experiences. ID theory tries to thwart any attempt to address motivations, intentions, presuppositions, values, beliefs and purposes even in their choosing to support/promote ID theory qua theory. They simply don’t want to talk about the humanitarian or sociological features of ID theory because it would directly lead them to the conclusion that motivations, values and yes, even worldview actually *does* play a role in the making of their theory. Charles Thaxton, founder-inventor of ‘modern ID’ well knows this, as he told me over lunch in Seattle. IDists who seek to appear objectivistic and neutral wrt worldview simply don’t want to admit that their presuppositions have anything to do with it; they want their chosen ‘natural scientific paradigm’ to be just a logical conclusion of ‘following the evidence where it leads’ and 'making an inference to the best explanation' as if they are non-human robots operating in a character vacuum. This is why the Discovery Institute’s summer program for Intelligent Design in the Humanities and Social Sciences collapsed; there can be no positive theory of Intelligent Design in those fields because human beings as obvious decision-makers *must* be studied, i.e. cannot be avoided. And sadly, typically, natural scientistically, ID theory needs to avoid any talk of ‘designers/Designers’ in order to maintain its aura of objectivistic natural science. Have you ever thought about this ecs2? Most IDists don’t allow themselves the luxury of openly questioning why the UD’s summer program for ID in the Humanities and Social Sciences collapsed. That is simply a fact that I can tell you right now, since I was there and looked directly into John G. West’s eyes while he was happily and willingly wedging his students. There is really nothing behind a ‘positive’ case for ID theory in those fields. He knows this, I told it directly to his face and he realised why the program had to go. Do you notice how Timaeus *never* advocates for ID theory in his home fields, religious studies, western history of ideas and political theory? Why do you think that is, ecs2?ID theory of government elections and papal conclaves?! Timaeus doesn’t have the exaggeration of his convictions like Joe or Mung or KF or other ‘universalist designism’ advocates here at UD. Dr. Michael Behe, who I otherwise would most probably respect, plainly over-reached himself in the Preface to Dembksi’s “Intelligent Design: THE Bridge between Science and Theology,” claiming: “ID has implications for all humane studies.” But what good is a ‘bridge’ that doesn’t touch down on both sides?Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

@Gregory, 11
What does that have to do with ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ theory? Nothing, right? Absolutely nothing.
Intelligent (d/D)esign supports Christianity. You haven't answered my question.JWTruthInLove_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

I'm assuming Gregory meant transhumanism or human enhancement, because Google hits for "human extension" gave me a page about hair extensions.Kantian Naturalist_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

I really enjoyed this video. I would like to hear what he had to skip over due to time.Collin_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Robert Byers, I hope it's prior to the millenium.Collin_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Glad it was in my old home town. (Its home now only in name for problems). I missed it but Canada is involved and can claim a healthy creationism or general anti- evolutionism scepticism. However America is where the demise of evolution as a theory will take place.Robert Byers_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I have seen you claim in a couple of places that ID is dehumanizing. Can you explain why you say that. My assumption would be darwinian evolution might be viewed as dysanthropic and ID the opposite.ecs2_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

'You have to entertain either Gregory or P. Z. Myers at your home. Whom do you choose?' Pinochet?Axel_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Is this lecture also available on dvd?BigBibby_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Does anyone here have the slightest clue what Gregory is talking about in #26? If it makes any sense at all -- and the exposition is so poor that it may not -- it seems to be saying that some other academic went out to dinner with Gregory and showed him the flaws in his model of "human extension" -- and that Gregory actually acknowledged that the criticism was reasonable! It seems also that Gregory is saying that he was able to accept the criticism because it came from "good company." Presumably that is meant as an invidious comparison with the people here at UD, who are not "good company." I guess the take-home message for us is that if we want Gregory to listen to logic, reason, science, evidence, historical fact, etc., we will have to become "good company." So all the friction, all the boasting, all the ad hominem remarks, all the evasions, all the discussions blocked when Gregory ceases to answer questions about his position -- all that is our fault, for not being "good company." Presumably Gregory thinks of himself as "good company." I wonder how many people here would be inclined to bring him home for dinner? (Horns of a dilemma: You have to entertain either Gregory or P. Z. Myers at your home. Whom do you choose?) One thing we know for sure, based on Gregory's comment on Behe's lecture: one would have to explain the punch lines of all the dinner-table jokes to him.Timaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

StephenB #23. Thanks for the laugh SB. Really funny. But so blooming true. "Gregory’s finely-tuned sense of proportionality helps him to know which questions should be pressed and which ones should be left alone." ha ha ha :) How long will it be before Gregory begins to try and categorise her as either 'Big-ID' or 'small-id'. You do get some laughs on here.PeterJ_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Tonight in good company I was humbled and challenged about Human Extension as an alternative to evolutionism, creationism and IDism. Thankfully most 'normal' people understand that human choice is not such an 'unmeasurable' thing as IDist policy demands, yet that it is still a welcome challenge. Indeed, like with Behe, ID theory is one of the most dehumanising theories imaginable.Gregory_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

A few more notes on recent breakthroughs,, Particle and Wave-Like Behavior of Light Measured Simultaneously (Nov. 1, 2012) Excerpt: Dr Peruzzo, Research Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Photonics, said: "The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment. This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101141107.htm Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality - January 29, 2013 Excerpt: While previous quantum eraser experiments made the erasure choice before or (in delayed-choice experiments) after the interference – thereby allowing communications between erasure and interference in the two systems, respectively – scientists in Prof. Anton Zeilinger's group at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the University of Vienna recently reported a quantum eraser experiment in which they prevented this communications possibility by enforcing Einstein locality. They accomplished this using hybrid path-polarization entangled photon pairs distributed over an optical fiber link of 55 meters in one experiment and over a free-space link of 144 kilometers in another. Choosing the polarization measurement for one photon decided whether its entangled partner followed a definite path as a particle, or whether this path-information information was erased and wave-like interference appeared. They concluded that since the two entangled systems are causally disconnected in terms of the erasure choice, wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation. The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior. http://phys.org/news/2013-01-einstein-entanglement-quantum-erasure-deconstructs.html Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement - July 30, 2012 Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,, In the current study, the physicists have proposed an experiment based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) that is fully within reach of current technologies. They describe a set-up that involves a pair of superconducting qubits, P and F, with qubit P connected to a quantum field vacuum by a transmission line. During the first time interval, which the scientists call the past, P interacts with the field. Then P is quickly decoupled from the field for the second time interval. Finally, F is coupled to the field for a time interval called the future. Even though P and F never interact with the field at the same time or with each other at all, F’s interactions with the field cause it to become entangled with P. The physicists call this correlation “past-future entanglement.” http://phys.org/news/2012-07-qubits-interact-past-future-entanglement.html Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011 Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.htmlbornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Box you ask
Has every ‘particle’ a corresponding particle?
Are you asking about antiparticles or about quantum entanglement? If about antiparticles the answer is no:
Antiparticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
If you are asking about quantum entanglement the answer is still no for the particle can exist by itself, not entangled with any other particles, or it can be entangled with one or more particles simultaneously. For instance, in the following paper they consider the implications of four particles which are simultaneously entangled:
Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory - (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, "Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them," says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
Box you also stated:
They (articles on quantum physics) raise many questions which I do not want to bother you with, because they spring all from total ignorance.
That comment reminds me of what Professor Zeilinger stated in the last few seconds of this following video:
Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger (a leader in quantum teleportation breakthroughs) – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ "We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created we know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered, but we do not know what it is doing in-between" Anton Zeilinger
And indeed the 'wave state', which is what 'state' the photon is in as it travels in the double slit experiment (or as it travels in the universe at large), is very mysterious as to how they describe it:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Gregory
Why does Michael Behe’s mother disagree with him, presumably regarding Intelligent Design theory
Timaeus
Ummmm … Gregory, I think Behe was making a joke.
I hasten to remind Timaeus that Gregory has "stumped" the best minds at the Discovery Institute by peppering them with equally profound and challenging questions. Though their jaws may have dropped in stunned disbelief, Gregory interpreted their diplomatic and compassionate silence as a tacit confession that he had penetrated ID theory beyond their endurance. Gregory
As they say in Russia, in every joke there’s an element of truth. Behe’s mother rejects something about his IDism. What is it?
Gregory's finely-tuned sense of proportionality helps him to know which questions should be pressed and which ones should be left alone.StephenB_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 (21) I’m always fascinated by your ‘articles’ about physics. They raise many questions which I do not want to bother you with, because they spring all from total ignorance. Allow me to ask you one question about non-locality though: Has every ‘particle’ a corresponding particle? If every particle has only one corresponding particle, one cannot state that this corresponding particle is ‘everywhere’, right?Box_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

John 18:38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked.,,," To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people back in the 60?s, such as the Beatles, have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock. Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and ‘truth’. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (all solids, liquids and gases) of the universe are ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy. E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs. Atomic Bomb Explosion – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI 6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb 4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce of mass 1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs Entire energy consumption of America, for 1 year, equivalent to 1 bowling ball 52 X 10^55 Hiroshima bombs equivalent at ‘Big Bang’ Big Bang After its (The Big Bang’s) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon countless trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, which are ‘unseen’, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, and are what can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock. The last part of this following video, starting at the 5:09 minute mark, has some excellent photographs of atoms that gets this ‘non-solid’ point of the energy/matter of a rock across as well as giving a tiny glimpse of where the universal constants come into play. Uncertainty Principle – The ‘Uncertain Non-Particle’ Basis Of Material Reality – video and article http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172 ,,,Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the atoms of the rock besides the universal constants/forces and matter/energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the interrelated unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place. Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths of reason that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the unchanging “truth” tells them they can and cannot do in the rock. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet truth can exist independently of the rock. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent in this universe. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it very mildly, if this uniformity of truth, for all of nature, were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding “particle”. Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some of the Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal, instantaneous, awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this “truth’ of the speed of light). This scientific proof of ‘instantaneous’ quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality (and quantum teleportation), to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that “truth” has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist. This “Truth”, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way, shape, or form, by quantum non-locality, has also demonstrated foresight and purpose in the extreme fine-tuning for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be “alive” from the fact that a “decision” had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that ‘Truth’ inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place. “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.” Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI i.e. ‘Truth’ is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, “uncaused cause”, the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the quantum teleportation of its “information” to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics, and provides yet another direct line of evidence that ‘Truth’ is the foundational entity of this universe that gives rise to everything in this universe. Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (truth is apparently aware of everything that is happening in the universe); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space for the express purpose of creating life; (fine-tuning) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God and is coexistent with the Character of His Being. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that ‘Truth’, as far as the scientific method is concerned, is God. Now to bring all this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth, the Way and The Life”. And in regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, I would say that this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim to make! If Jesus is speaking the truth, which I believe He is, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus equivalent to God Almighty. Well,,, Is Jesus God??? Well, believe it or not, there actually is now some fairly strong scientific evidence that gives a very credible, and very persuasive, indication that the number one problem in physics and mathematics today, of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘Theory of everything’, finds a very credible resolution in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,, and In my book, if Christ is the “Theory of Everything” that means that Jesus Christ is God i.e. The Jesus Christ is “The Truth” just as He claimed to be! The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US Verse and Music: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX Lyric from song: “Death has lost and love has won!”bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Gregory, you wrote: "You seem to think anyone who is an Abrahamic believer *should* accept Big-ID theory. I am here to tell you that you are wrong." I never made any such claim. But it is quite obvious that, whatever claims I actually do make, you are here to tell me that I am wrong. Your knee-jerk reflex to say "black" every time I say "white" has been apparent to every reader of this site for a long time now. I would never argue that a Christian *must* support ID. It is interesting to note, however, that among American evangelical Christians, there does seem to be a rough correspondence between a *fully* orthodox or traditional understanding of God, creation, and the authority/inspiration of the Bible, and support for ID, and a rough correspondence between a looser, less orthodox or traditional understanding of God, creation, and the authority/inspiration of the Bible, and hostility to ID combined with support for TE. I don't think this correspondence is entirely accidental.Timaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

"Take your truth with vinegar, BA!" Okie Dokie Gregory,, let's see how "the truth" interacts with vinegar,,
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Matthew 27:34 (KJV) They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. Psalm 69:21 They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. John 18:37-38 ,,and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." "What is truth?" Pilate asked.,,,
The last verse happens, as far as I know, happens to be the verse on the oldest fragment of of the New Testament discovered thus far:
The Oldest Known Fragment Of The New Testament - Serendipitous Gospel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfR0AsRaX4
bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
It is interesting that your *only* comment on Behe’s talk, in this UD discussion specifically devoted to Behe’s talk, is about a joke he made just 2 minutes in, as part of the preamble to the talk; the talk itself, and subsequent question period, are over an hour and 20 minutes long! You have no comments to make on the substance of what Behe said?
Frankly I see that as progress. At least by saying nothing he's not lying about what Behe said.Mung_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
What does that have to do with ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ theory? Nothing, right? Absolutely nothing.
Is Gregory finally seeing the light? Somehow I doubt it. But to answewr Gregory's question, some who argue for natural theology think it ought to be Trinitarian. I hardly think that Jews and Muslims would agree.Mung_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "If it is true that there is no ‘historical basis’ to Behe’s spoken claim ..." Behe didn't make a "claim" about his mother's view; he made a *joke*. Apparently sociologists have no sense of humor. (Come to think of it, I've never seen a sociologist laugh. Or tell a joke. I'm not sure I've ever seen a sociologist even smile.) It is interesting that your *only* comment on Behe's talk, in this UD discussion specifically devoted to Behe's talk, is about a joke he made just 2 minutes in, as part of the preamble to the talk; the talk itself, and subsequent question period, are over an hour and 20 minutes long! You have no comments to make on the substance of what Behe said?Timaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Take your truth with vinegar, BA! Natural scientistic IDism is a loser that will not 'win out.' Likewise, 'creationism' will not 'win out.' It doesn't take a futurist to see this. And neither are 'orthodox' Abrahamic positions.Gregory_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

sorry: will WIN out,,bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

correction: more appealing THAN vinegarbornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Gregory, ,, In the marketplace of ideas, do you not think that sugar would make your product more appealing vinegar? Why such abrasiveness? If you are right your ideas will when out in the long run anyway.bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

"Do you think of yourself as a “Christian”?" What does that have to do with 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' theory? Nothing, right? Absolutely nothing.Gregory_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

@Gregory:
Why does Michael Behe’s mother disagree with him, presumably regarding Intelligent Design theory?
How do you know it's not intelligent design theory? Do you think of yourself as a "Christian"?JWTruthInLove_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

It's a clear sense of entitlement, Timaeus. And it is based on your IDological movement-mongering viewpoint. You seem to think anyone who is an Abrahamic believer *should* accept Big-ID theory. I am here to tell you that you are wrong.Gregory_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

"reasonable/normal social expectations." - Timaeus Thanks, that's a humourous keeper! Go hide back in your anti-social cave, Timaeus, while demanding such things from people who are public and known, unlike you. Your position doesn't seem worth 'understanding,' Timaeus. You would likely make Plato ashamed. I am a Platonist also, but don't disguise myself as an natural scientistic IDist as you do. If it is true that there is no 'historical basis' to Behe's spoken claim, then Behe is just as much a propagandist as you are.Gregory_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply