Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks for that, I will take a look presently.
here is the link to professor Behes cross examination, its really really interesting, i was reading it on the edge of my seat, as if i was watching some nineteen fifties thriller set in some dark Lagoon. i did not reproduce it here due to its length - regards Robbie.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh, the nature is the evidence itself. Observe and you will find. God didn't design evolution from nothing, you know.
I have yet seen no evidence, either biblically nor scientifically which shows conclusively, that God used the evolutionary process. have you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou weren't kidding! Wow...just finished. That's a LOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGGG bit of testimony. To be honest, I had to skip over a few pages in the middle (p.4 and 5), but the rest was kind of interesting. I do think that the judge in this case came to the correct conclusion, that Behe's testimony indicated ID falls short of what is required of a scientific theory.
here is the link to professor Behes cross examination, its really really interesting, i was reading it on the edge of my seat, as if i was watching some nineteen fifties thriller set in some dark Lagoon. i did not reproduce it here due to its length - regards Robbie.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132
1 edit
LOL, yes its huge but riveting! here is what my friend, a legal expert says with regard to the case.
I believe Behe is full of crap, in short, because he tries to negate Jones' sound reasoning that the ID argument is based on a false dichotomy by offering his own false dichotomy. Behe responded to Jones by describing in an essay a theoretically valid dichotomy, the essential features of which are that it has two causes, natural and intelligent, which theoretically are cumulatively exhaustive (no other causes exist) and mutually exclusive (the two causes never interact). The problem is that the essential features of Behe?s theoretical dichotomy are missing from the negative arguments that ID-proponents ? including Behe himself ? actually use. Behe seems not to understand that valid dichotomies are like sensible diets: they do not work if we do not follow them. Don't get me started. The entire silly ID debate is an inane attempt to re argue the very ancient ontological argument.
yet i, in true creationist fashion intend to redeem Behe, to honour his name, and to celebrate his genius, who will join me? 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...(tumbleweed)...
LOL, yes its huge but riveting! here is what my friend, a legal expert says with regard to the case.
I believe Behe is full of crap, in short, because he tries to negate Jones' sound reasoning that the ID argument is based on a false dichotomy by offering his own false dichotomy. Behe responded to Jones by describing in an essay a theoretically v ...[text shortened]... n intend to redeem Behe, to honour his name, and to celebrate his genius, who will join me? 🙂
😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree with your friend. The question I was asking earlier about what's included in the "etc etc etc" was heading in that direction - it's fine to list some alternatives and knock them off one by one, to be left with the only possible solution, but that only works if the list is exhaustive.
LOL, yes its huge but riveting! here is what my friend, a legal expert says with regard to the case.
I believe Behe is full of crap, in short, because he tries to negate Jones' sound reasoning that the ID argument is based on a false dichotomy by offering his own false dichotomy. Behe responded to Jones by describing in an essay a theoretically v ...[text shortened]... n intend to redeem Behe, to honour his name, and to celebrate his genius, who will join me? 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know him, nor his views, so I actually don't know.
Fabian, my learned friend, you seem to be closer to the views of the eminent professor than you realise 🙂
Is evolution a fact for him?
If evolution is created or not is a matter of religion and there I don't have any objections, it's not within the domain of science.
If he denies evolution of religious reasons then he is dead wrong, as he equally is if he denies evolution of scientific reasons.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes up to a point, although he seems to hold the view that it does not explain everything though and by observing the natural world we can discern 'signs', or 'evidence', of intelligence, the implications of this are quite obvious 🙂
I don't know him, nor his views, so I actually don't know.
Is evolution a fact for him?
If evolution is created or not is a matter of religion and there I don't have any objections, it's not within the domain of science.
If he denies evolution of religious reasons then he is dead wrong, as he equally is if he denies evolution of scientific reasons.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are these 'signs' or 'evidence' that shows intelligence?
yes up to a point, although he seems to hold the view that it does not explain everything though and by observing the natural world we can discern 'signs', or 'evidence', of intelligence, the implications of this are quite obvious 🙂
What do you mean by obvious? 'Without any need for further investigations'?
Remember that we are in the Science Forum so unless you show that this intelligence is within the laws of physics, it's not really Science and this discussion should be brought to the Spiritual Forum.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnashis theory of irreducible complexity and thus the case for intelligent design, of which he has produced, the flagellum and its propensity for movement, or more specifically the components of its parts being dependent on one another for full functionality to be realised, also blood clotting and something else which escapes me at present.
What are these 'signs' or 'evidence' that shows intelligence?
What do you mean by obvious? 'Without any need for further investigations'?
Remember that we are in the Science Forum so unless you show that this intelligence is within the laws of physics, it's not really Science and this discussion should be brought to the Spiritual Forum.
I stated obvious, for if there is evidence of intelligence then I presumed that it would lead to the natural conclusion that intelligence requires planning, comprehension, application of knowledge etc etc and may therefore portend to a 'personality'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo he claims that this must be intelligent design behind? I say it is evolution. Like "I don't how the hell this works, so someone intelligenter than me must have design it!" Like this? I say: "Very scientific, very very scientific." Or perhaps rather very fundamentalistic creationsistic.
his theory of irreducible complexity and thus the case for intelligent design, of which he has produced, the flagellum and its propensity for movement, or more specifically the components of its parts being dependent on one another for full functionality to be realised, also blood clotting and something else which escapes me at present.
I stated ...[text shortened]... comprehension, application of knowledge etc etc and may therefore portend to a 'personality'.
Say that this intelligent entity really exists, does it have to be the christian god to design this? Perhaps it's another god that no human being knows about? And why is the genesis the correct explanation?
Okay, we are in the Science Forum. You say (and he) that there must be an intelligent being designing the universe, then where is the evidence for the existance of such a creature?
In your answer, don't use any religious arguments, because we are in the Science Forum. Please open a thread in the Spiritual Forum, and we I'll be there debating this issue with you.
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasactually Fabian i have grown tired and really have no appetite to debate this with you. Behes claims are based on his scientific observations as a professor of biochemistry and i do not doubt it, are used as a method of substantiation with respect to his religious beliefs, and as yet, i have not looked at the specifics of his arguments and the ensuing counter arguments, and even when i have taken the time, i have not really fully understood the full implications of both sides, for i am neither a lawyer nor a biochemist., its not that the essential concepts are hard to grasp, but one must wade through much specialised and 'in-house terminology', if one is to find it, its there, but kind of remains buried under a lot of other stuff. my aim at present is to try to extract it, examine it, see if it is valuable, and then we can talk, at present, our debate would be like a an astute cat playing with a happy, but delirious mouse. did i say delirious, i meant delicious 🙂
So he claims that this must be intelligent design behind? I say it is evolution. Like "I don't how the hell this works, so someone intelligenter than me must have design it!" Like this? I say: "Very scientific, very very scientific." Or perhaps rather very fundamentalistic creationsistic.
Say that this intelligent entity really exists, does it have to open a thread in the Spiritual Forum, and we I'll be there debating this issue with you.
i would really like in future, to simply stick to the science, the creationist v evolution thing is really ineffective, i have realised this, for one must fight fire with fire!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBehe is a creationist, he doesn't believe in evolution he believes that there is a designer.
actually Fabian i have grown tired and really have no appetite to debate this with you. Behes claims are based on his scientific observations as a professor of biochemistry and i do not doubt it, are used as a method of substantiation with respect to his religious beliefs, and as yet, i have not looked at the specifics of his arguments and the ensui ...[text shortened]... volution thing is really ineffective, i have realised this, for one must fight fire with fire!
His claims of irreducible complexity have been rebuffed, and by his own admission his methods cannot be called 'science'. They are his beliefs.
There is no evidence of a designer other than in scripture. What is there to debate??