The atheist and evilutionist Richard Dawkins has stated that Intelligent Design could be true. Why would he now state such a thing that is opposite from what he teaches? Perhaps he has become aware of the following information:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform.
Richard Dawkins observed that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”
Software contains instructions that direct computers to accomplish various functions. Likewise, DNA contains instructions for the assembly of tiny machines called proteins, which perform vital functions within every cell.
Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?
So how did the information get into the DNA in the first place? Without it, the first cell wouldn’t have been constructed, and life would not have begun.
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of physics is the concept of cosmic fine tuning of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced for permitting the emergence of complex life.
British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Could this super intellect be the God that is written about in the Holy Bible? You know, the same God that created the heavens and the earth and created light, the sun, the moon, the seas, and the four seasons of the year. Could this super intellect be that same God that made all living plants and animals, including humans, and made them capable of reproducing after their own kind?
I believe the answer is most likely, YES.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
It is highly dishonest and disingenuous to quote mine someone to support a
position they vocally oppose and do not agree with at all.
It is a sign of how bankrupt and pathetic your position is that you have to twist
the words of those that oppose it to try to make like they support it.
It wouldn't matter if Dawkins DID believe in ID (he vehemently doesn't) because
the evidence still says that ID is wrong and Evolution is true.
And science is founded on evidence, and not individuals personal opinions.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did not say Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design. I simply said he admitted to the possibility the Intelligent Design could be true. Look at the following video of an interview with Richard Dawkins if you doubt what I say.
It is highly dishonest and disingenuous to quote mine someone to support a
position they vocally oppose and do not agree with at all.
It is a sign of how bankrupt and pathetic your position is that you have to twist
the words of those that oppose it to try to make like they support it.
It wouldn't matter if Dawkins DID believe in ID (he v olution is true.
And science is founded on evidence, and not individuals personal opinions.
Contrary to what you claim there is evidence for Intelligent Design and none for evilution.
The Instructor
I had started a thread on the Science Forum about Richard Dawkins admitting to Intelligent Design, but they look at Intelligent Design as just Creationism is disquise, and do not think of Intelligent Design as serious science, because it has implications that lead to the conclusion of a Creator like in the Holy Bible. That is why I decided to post something on it here as well.
On the Science Forum someone replied with the the following link in an attempted rebuttal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
And I replied as follows:
I was not really referring to Hoyle's junkyard tornado theory, but thanks for bring that up so I can add more fuel to the fire.
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 to the 40,000 power. However, now we know that the probability is even more unlikely than that.
He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
This is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?
The only fallacy in Hoyle's comments was that he did not know the extent of the problem for the evilutionists. Professor Stephen Hawking simply stated that the chance of something like DNA arising in the universe is extremely unlikely. However, astronomer Hugh Ross has attempted to calculate the probability as Hoyle did from what scientist know now and it would just take too many zeros for me to attempt to represent it on this post. I suspect in the future his figure will need even more zeros added so his figure will look like just as much an underestimate of the problem for the evolutionists that Hoyle's figure does for us today.
The possibility of figuring the probability of Humans arising without a bunch of miracles is not able to be calculated because we just don't have enough knowledge. So for all practical purposes we can only say that it is not possible without miracles.
Those claiming this is a fallacy say that natural selection can account for it over time. However, they overlook the fact that biological natural selection has to have something to naturally select. That takes us back to the question of how the information gets there. Don't try to tell me natural selection selects the information out of thin air. Or is magic okay if used in an effort to prove evilution?
The Instructor
Originally posted by caissad4Intelligent Design is true science too. So if you believe that Intelligent design is Creationism, then that logically means Creationism is also true science. We already know evilution is the religious view of the atheist and not really true science, but only masquerading as science.
Intelligent design IS creationism in disguise.
Intelligent design is cretinism in truth.
The Instructor
Originally posted by googlefudgePeer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
And given the various court rulings, ID is creationism in law.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
There are many court rulings that have turned out to be wrong.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindshave you read the link you posted?
The atheist and evilutionist Richard Dawkins has stated that Intelligent Design could be true. Why would he now state such a thing that is opposite from what he teaches? Perhaps he has become aware of the following information:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/2 ...[text shortened]... reproducing after their own kind?
I believe the answer is most likely, YES.
The Instructor
where is the science?
the i.d. people dont actually provide any science supporting i.d. they just
so where is the science rj? you must have something more solid than quoting evolutionists out of context, surely?
so, what scientific theories do they have?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieActually they try to rebut 'claims by evolutionary scientists'.
have you read the link you posted?
where is the science?
the i.d. people dont actually provide any science supporting i.d. they just refute claims made by evolutionist science.
so where is the science rj? you must have something more solid than quoting evolutionists out of context, surely?
so, what scientific theories do they have?
Saying they refute them means that their rebuttals are effective and correct.
And I know you didn't mean that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHinds
Intelligent Design is true science too. So if you believe that Intelligent design is Creationism, then that logically means Creationism is also true science. We already know evilution is the religious view of the atheist and not really true science, but only masquerading as science.
The Instructor
Intelligent Design is true science too....
What? are you 8 yrs old?
You're like a little kid on the school playground stamping your foot and
throwing a tantrum.
Things are not true because you, or anyone else, asserts them.
Belief is not knowledge.
It doesn't matter how much you believe something, wishing something
was true does not make it true.
The entire biological sciences say that you are wrong, that evolution is true,
and ID is false, and that ID is not, and cannot be, science.
All the scientific literature, science conferences, textbooks, and practitioners
say that evolution is real, proved beyond any and all reasonable and even
unreasonable doubt.
And no matter how many times you stamp your foot, throw a paddy, and
declare otherwise...
You are wrong, ID is not and has never been, and never will be, science.
The fact that you are convinced that the bible god exists, and that the world
is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution is wrong and doesn't happen.
Does not mean that what you believe is science.
Theists such as yourself have realised that science works, that science is respected
as being an effective and powerful tool for understanding reality.
The fact that you constantly try to claim that your position is supported by science
is because you recognise that science works and that people understand and respect that.
And this poses you a problem, because science does not support your position.
At all.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsnot sure if ive got the time to go through all the 'peer reviewed' publications listed. after having a look at the first two, we have-
The atheist and evilutionist Richard Dawkins has stated that Intelligent Design could be true. Why would he now state such a thing that is opposite from what he teaches? Perhaps he has become aware of the following information:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/2 ...[text shortened]... reproducing after their own kind?
I believe the answer is most likely, YES.
The Instructor
m.j. behe - who's theories about complex design were proven to be non scientific famously in the dover area school board court case. where his theory was torn easily torn apart so easily that even a creationist judge ruled i.d. was not science.
watch -
a documentary about the dover school board court case. skip to 1hr 3mins to see a recreation of m.j. behe taking the stand.
s.c. meyer - had one peer-reviewed-article in a science journal........a journal who later retracted the article because it hadnt actually been peer-reviewed and had no scientific content.
read about the Sternberg peer review controversy for more info.
Originally posted by caissad4wow thats bitter, waz up, can you not handle any alternatives to materialism? such a narrow minded perspective is hard to respect. The difference between creationists and materialists is that creationists have not limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies.
Intelligent design IS creationism in disguise.
Intelligent design is cretinism in truth.
Originally posted by stellspalfiewhy dont you address the science instead of attempting rather predictably to attack the personalities behind the movement, what exactly was unscientific about Behe's assertion of intelligent design and irreducible complexity?
not sure if ive got the time to go through all the 'peer reviewed' publications listed. after having a look at the first two, we have-
m.j. behe - who's theories about complex design were proven to be non scientific famously in the dover area school board court case. where his theory was torn easily torn apart so easily that even a creationist judge ...[text shortened]... had no scientific content.
read about the Sternberg peer review controversy for more info.