Posted on 04/01/2008 12:21:24 PM PDT by Zender500
I rather doubt they were able to name anyone who actually lost a job.
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
While proving a supreme being may not be scientifically possible, one thing is for sure - if there is a supreme being, we'll know it when we die, and all questions will be answered.
Until then, the debate will go on.
ok. see the movie.
Hitler may have promoted himself as a Christian, but that was just to make the Nazi sale to the German public.
Dinesh D’Souza pretty much pins it down here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/05/was_hitler_a_christian?
Athiests have been for years pointing to the inquisition to show that Chrisitanity is brutal and cruel and should be rejected in favor of Athiesm. One little problem though....Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc to the tune of 100 million plus murders......
It was not a question, rather he made two assertions about proponents of ID. Your willingness to be gracious aside, do you have any justification that either assertion actually has a valid basis. They both seem to fall flat to me.
If I look at a crop circle, I can deduce that it was made by something intelligent. This does not mean that the formation of crop circles is beyond my comprehension. This does not mean that I must prove the existence of space aliens much less do I need to accept their existence, nor even understand them in the least.
Alternatively, if I surmise the crop circles are caused by pranksters, should I listen to a "naturalist" who demands that I either provide a detailed psychoanalysis of the pranksters or accept that the crop circles just happened by some application of mindless nature? But that same naturalist has us assume the later. Should not the naturalist assume the former as well? (I allow there is a flimsy escape from this argument that gives naturalism a little wiggle room, but not much--its beyond the scope of this discussion though).
Is it not more likely that crop circles are the result of a mindless nature, then the entire super set of creation?
The naturalist world view can't even model the existence of any mind at all! So how the heck do they get off telling the non-naturalist to give them a frame work for the mind of God?
“Ben Stein is an idiot lackey for a bunch of dumb a&*$ creationists.”
I thank you for clearing things up for me, since I am a simpleton hayseed and believe that God created the Universe. :)
Who? It's a "large group", so there shouldn't be much trouble actually naming a few.
Another theory similar to evolution. No demonstrable reproducible scientific proof whatsoever to support it. Said theory is right simply because THEY say it is right.
This is satire, right? It's sometimes hard to tell around here.
Look well at your allies I.D.’ers. They don't just deny evolution but geology, plate tech-tonics, astronomy, physics, and modern medicine. And these Luddites actually claim they are going to ‘rescue’ Science or ‘advance’ Science with their philosophy of the ‘designer of the gaps’.
“I understand that Ben Stein is a smart man, and quite knowledgable about various subjects. I don’t know if he is qualified to debate Evolution, however.”
Stein isn’t claiming to be the expert...his point is that the Darwinists refuse, even run from, real debate...and use fascists tactics to stifle debate.
This was not the treatment of the subject that would be of any use to these students in their career as Biologists, and was not the subject she was hired to teach. I would have swapped out that class just as fast as if I entered a class and all they talked about was the lies and flaws of fallacies and nut jobs associated with Creationism. Neither is of any use to an aspiring Scientist.
Not quite a correct analogy I think...
Upon viewing a crop circle, I would suggest that creation by an intelligent being is much more likely than spontaneous occurrence.
Following that, I would suggest that creation by a human with stakes, ropes and a lawnmower is much more likely than creation by a little man in a UFO. The motivation of the "prankster" is irrelevant.
Both assertions are dependent upon (1) Ockham's razor, and (2) the willingness to research exactly how those circles were made and how the feat could be duplicated.
Any ID proponent who is willing to similarly research and develop a coherent theory as to how the designer actually does it will have my respect.
If you stopped there without speculating as to how it was done, it seems you would be in a stronger position with regard to Occam's razor (I think the Latin spelling is more traditional).
Consider these two assertions:
1) The crop circle was made by some intelligence.
2) The crop circle was made by a group of one or more humans with the use of stakes, ropes, or lawnmower or similar tools.
Unless you consider humans not to be a form of intelligence, the first assertion is always true if the second is. But the second is possibly not true if the first is.
The more specific an assertion is within the subset of another assertion the less likely it is to be true. This is essentially the definition of the largely misunderstood or misapplied Occam's Razor".
Any ID proponent who is willing to similarly research and develop a coherent theory as to how the designer actually does it will have my respect.
Agreed such research would be most impressive! But I don't think mortal science is up to the task.
But please notice how you just applied a high value to the non application of Occam's Razor? Indeed, a more specific assertion, if true, is more valuable then a less specific assertion that could be deduced from it. Occam's Razor only applies to the relative chance of veracity, not the value of the assertion itself.
It seems to me my objection to your original criticism of ID stands unscathed:
My issue with ID proponents is that, having posited that the origin of life is complex beyond the capacity of science to understand
ID proponents do not hold that the complexity of life is beyond the capacity of science to understand. Rather they hold the complexity as evidence that there was intelligence behind it.
...they resolve that dilemma by...
The dilemma seems purely your invention here.
introducing a creator more complex still, by several orders of magnitude!!
The creator doesn't make it more complex at all. The model of the creator used is based on very broad parameters, because the details are beyond the scope of what they are promoting.
Indeed they are applying Occam's Razor and you seem not to, as if you merely wish them to assert more then they reasonably can.
Now is ID a valid form of science. No, I don't think so, but is it a reasonable philosophical doctrine. Yes, it would seem so.
Exactly.
When a proposed explanation for "the way the world is" moves from natural to supernatural causes, it leaves the realm of science and enters into the realm of philosophy.
Not any less "valid", just a different mode of approach.
Thanks for your well thought out posts!
Yet “I.D.” makes specific claims regarding Science and the nature of this “designed creation”; namely that the mechanism put in place to allow for the change in living species in response to environmental pressures (natural selection of genetic variation) is insufficient to accomplish any major changes that we have observed in what species have inhabited the earth.
That is why, to me, I.D. will always stand for Incompetent Design rather than Intelligent Design. A truly Intelligently Designed universe would have a mechanism in place that was sufficeint to the need rather than some shoddy haphazard system only capable of ‘micro’ changes.
Maybe I should call what I believe “E.M.I.D.” for “Even More Intelligently Designed” or perhaps “N.I.D.” for “Not Incompetently Designed”.
Most Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (I am one of these), and they also mostly believe in a “not Incompetently Designed” universe. Many of them are named Steve apparently.
Yet “I.D.” makes specific claims regarding Science and the nature of this “designed creation”; namely that the mechanism put in place to allow for the change in living species in response to environmental pressures (natural selection of genetic variation) is insufficient to accomplish any major changes that we have observed in what species have inhabited the earth.
That is why, to me, I.D. will always stand for Incompetent Design rather than Intelligent Design. A truly Intelligently Designed universe would have a mechanism in place that was sufficient to the need rather than some shoddy haphazard system only capable of ‘micro’ changes.
Maybe I should call what I believe “E.M.I.D.” for “Even More Intelligently Designed” or perhaps “N.I.D.” for “Not Incompetently Designed”.
Most Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (I am one of these), and they also mostly believe in a “not Incompetently Designed” universe. Many of them are named Steve apparently.
Good point, if there is a designer he certainly takes his time about it, and does a lot of learning from trial and error.
Yeah, a non-transcendent, non-god-like designer that actively moves evolution along doesn't seem plausible to me either.
They couldn't pay Jimmy enough now.
Jimmy is replacable, although certainly he was a key ingredient to the show. I suggest they replace him with a scantily-clad buxom brunette.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.