Posted on 08/07/2008 11:17:53 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Bringing the intelligent design debate to high-def, Vivendi Visual has announced an October Blu-ray release for Ben Stein's controversial documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.'
Drawing lines in the intelligent design versus evolution debate (with Stein falling squarely on the side of the former), 'Expelled' was praised by religious leaders and condemned by scientists in equal measure. Released through the Vivendi Visual Entertainment label, the company has set a October 21 Blu-ray release for the incendiary doc, day-and-date with the standard DVD.
(Excerpt) Read more at highdefdigest.com ...
Neither is assuming that that intelligence is *not* an 'a priori' precursor to the universe. That is a philosophical position as well.
But somehow that doesn't penetrate the evo mind.
Science requires evidence to declare something exists. Just provide verifiable evidence for a designer and all science will be at your feet
Of course not, that's why ID is just creationism in disguise.
In the film "Expelled" (reviewed below), Richard Dawkins is asked how intelligent design might be identified. He replies that an alien civilization might have designed life on earth and left a signature somewhere in the biosphere (my paraphrase). But, the alien designers would themselves have to have been evolved through Darwinian mechanisms.
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/richard-dawkins-and-darwinian.html
Science declares that naturalism is reality without evidence. Just provide verifiable evidence that naturalism is reality and all the world will be at your feet.
And your rendition of Dawkins statement is making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?
Of course, science is just the philosphy of naturalism in disguise.
I knew the evo mind wouldn't be able to comprehend, but would just repeat back that which it already believes, again without evidence.
You are back to making unsupported statements and calling them facts. But evos never do that, do they? Only ID'ers, huh?
I’ve already supplied a link in support of that quote.
Some quotes from your link:
"Dawkins's explanation leaves the postulated alien designers unexplained in terms of any original design. This indicates his a priori (or philosophical or worldview) commitment to naturalism as the only explanation for life. He can admit no possible evidence for any original designer. Now who is closed minded?"
"This illustrates that Philip Johnson pointed out near the beginning of the Intelligent Design movement in his work, Darwin on Trial: Darwinism is supported more by an a priori commitment to naturalism than it is by the empirical evidence. If naturalism is true, then something like Darwinism must be true. But if one keeps both design and naturalism on the table, the evidence for design can at least be seriously considered (and should be considered in the same way that evidence for design is detectable in archaeology, SETI, cryptography, forensics, and so on."
"The Darwinists claim that their science leads to their worldview (Darwinism). But, in reality, it is more like the opposite situation. Their naturalistic worldview demands Darwinism (or something very much like it--that is, some design-free explanation for all of life). This kind of philosophical commitment is a brand of fundamentalism: I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with the evidence."
"Richard Lewontin on materialism as absolute: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Here is your unsupported statement. "He said that if you allow for extraterrestrial design for life on earth, then that designer would have had to have a natural origin. The Hallmark of the ID movement is mking either unsupported statements and calling them facts."
The statement that 'that designer would have to have a natural origin' is unsupported in that it is a belief. There is no scientific evidence to support such a belief. You made the claim that making unsupported statements and calling them fact is a hallmark of the ID movement when you did exactly that in the sentence just prior to you making the claim.
The question is not whether there is a link for Dawkins making such unsupported statements. It is that the unsupported statement is believed without evidence. And this from someone who said, "Science requires evidence to declare something exists."
You got me dude. I have no idea what you are getting at.
Can you provide any evidence of a designer? I've been asking for months and no one has come up with anything.
Can you provide any evidence of naturalism? I've been asking for months and no one has come up with anything.
Where is the scientific support for your belief in naturalism?
Results, naturalism has been proven to produce them. Things like the computer you are using are the results of scientific method based on naturalism. No one has ever been shown to create anything supernaturally. You do it and I will believe.
You are confusing technology w/ the philosophy of naturalism. That is a logical error. Your belief is based on logical error.
No one has ever shown that the universe and life have been created naturally or that the natural universe is the limit of reality. You do it and I will believe.
No I'm not. One is derived from the other
Yes you are. Naturalism is not necessarily derived from technology and technology is no proof of naturalism.
Naturalism is an 'a priori' commitment, as the link you provided clearly showed.
"Richard Lewontin on materialism as absolute: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
"...because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Geez dude, Lewontin is honest enough to admit it. Why can't you?
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.