18 Oct 05
. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by nickybuttInteresting... rhetoric does make ID look dumb and stupid?
. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernat ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHold on. How are the two quotes above guilty of either presenting a strawman version of the ID view, or of presenting an argument from ignorance?
Interesting... rhetoric does make ID look dumb and stupid?
Edit: Never mind, you seem to have retracted your earlier claim. Good.
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYessss. I was a little quick out of the blocks there. False start...
Hold on. How are the two quotes above guilty of either presenting a strawman version of the ID view, or of presenting an argument from ignorance?
Edit: Never mind, you seem to have retracted your earlier claim. Good.
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by nickybuttMy take on ID and creationism is it doesn't explain anything it simply
. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernat ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
invokes something supernatural, end of story. It can never claim
to be science or scientific.
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by sonhouseIt can never claim to be science or scientific.
My take on ID and creationism is it doesn't explain anything it simply
invokes something supernatural, end of story. It can never claim
to be science or scientific.
Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.
If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, then the ID aspect that does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseOf course some people could "consider" it science. But such consideration would not change the fact that ID is NOT science.
[b]It can never claim to be science or scientific.
Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.
If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, exper ...[text shortened]... hat does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.[/b]
Also, I am glad to see you qualified the word "evidence" with "proposed" since there simply is no evidence in support of ID. There is merely a wealth of observations that happen to be compatible with the claims of ID -- in roughly the same way that all my current observations and sensations happen to be compatible with the notion that there is a giant invisible easter bunny standing right next to me, looking over my shoulder, watching me type this post. However, my current observations and sensations are in no way evidence in support of such a notion.
Do you think ID is any more "scientific" than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr"Ramen" to that, brother. At any rate, to label The Almighty as a "monster" belittles his love for us -- He yearns to touch us all with His Noodly Appendage.
FYI, the correct term is Pastafarianism.
In the words of the Prophet, Bobby Henderson: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
http://www.venganza.org/
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by Halitoseoh puhleeeze
[b]It can never claim to be science or scientific.
Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.
If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, exper ...[text shortened]... hat does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.[/b]
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by nickybuttEven if one assumes that "someone made" God, I would still point out that we're not responsible to God's maker, only to our maker.
. . ..To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was alw ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
If a person stands before God and says "I didn't believe in you because I can regress beyond you to somebody that made you", God could always answer, "It doesn't make any difference if someone made me, the only thing that matters here is the fact that I made YOU".
What would that person then say?