The Evolution will not be televised
- Started
- Last post
- 81 Responses
- skt0
*moons kelpie
- JazX0
kelpie, are there small kelpies?
- JazX0
- todelete__20
um, yeah, minus about 200 lbs. haha.
- Mimio0
discipler,
I think you should just accept that you believe in god and it's fundamentally unscientific. You can't place supernatural causes at the root of natural processes/mechanisms and still claim that the explaination is scientific. In honesty, what you're doing is rejecting the scientific method because you could never cite or prove the existence of a supernatural anything.
- paraselene0
Also working on a beast of a website, so time is limited. I miss you all ('specially oo of course para *flutters eyelashes*) but I'll be back proper-like soon enough
props to you all, even you discipler you maddy :)
kelpie
(Jul 20 05, 07:41)aw, shucks. take care of yourself out there in the big bad world without us!
*picks up kelpie's handkerchief
**attempts, in vain, to cover skt's nether regions with aforementioned hanky
:l
- discipler0
Mimio,
The notion that God as the catalyst for all life and matter, is only "unscientific" if you constrain science to that which seeks only naturalistic explanations. Science should evolve and seek the best explanation period, not simply the best naturalistic one. I don't reject the scientific method, I just say that it's limited. Science looks for the best explanation (Occam's Razor) and recent findings suggest that the complexity of organisms requires an intelligent designer. It's simply looking at the evidence and drawing a logical conclusion. :)
- TheTick0
I cannot tell you how refreshing I find these threads now that Discipler, the Creationist Ultimate Ninja is on my ignore list.
It's like a brisk spring shower...my little world view remains unchallenged by the Terrible Certainists..
So speaks the Hat of the Dancing Thunder God.
- discipler0
"don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."
- Mimio0
It's not a recent idea at all William Paley made the 'irreducable complexity' argument in 1802. Behe says nothing different from this, in fact he just uses another analogy. This idea has been sufficiently refuted time and again. You said you read 'The Blind Watchmaker' right?
- JazX0
I cannot contribute to this thread. The science is lacking.
//More philosophy please.
- discipler0
Mimio,
You're wrong. William Paley rightly noted the complexity of biological machines but had no idea just how complex they are - since during his day a cell just looked like a blob of gelatin on a slide. Behe, Meyer, Wells, Dembski, and a host of others have fully expounded on this truth. Also, Paley had no notion of the irreducible aspect - which is crucial.
Dawkin's Watchmaker was published in 86 and has garnered tremendous criticism and has been refuted numerous times (see "Not By Chance" - by Spetner and "Darwin's Black Box" - Behe). Behe's book, published in 96 remains as devastating a blow to naturalistic explanations as when it was first published. And if you'd like to read the numerous responses of Behe to his misinformed critics, go here (scroll down for responses):
- Mimio0
I'm saying what Behe and others are claiming is not science.(Hence not a single peer reviewed paper on ID) It's an appeal to metaphysics, lacking any explaination of the mechanics, governing laws, or processes that "design' the natural world as they see it.
Again, fundamentally not scientific.
- discipler0
Mimio, I'm not sure where you pulled that from, but it's categorically false. Behe and Meyer alone have had their writings published in major scientific periodicals for years! Would you like me to list them? You make the mistake of categorizing ID scientists as some sort of cult when in fact, it is a movement within the mainstream scientific community that is redefining and reshaping it.
Again, not appealing to metaphysics, rather, looking at what science actually observes and posulating the best explanation. As opposed to unscientific and exotic explanations about alleged chemical attractions which could not have happened and which do not deal with fundamental issue of origins anyway.
- Mimio0
Discipler, that's not research, it's op-ed stuff. Look at Behe's website the only thing that even passes remotely as research is his "Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference" which is in fact an excerpt from his first book.(not peer reviewed)
- Mimio0
He's a really good refutation of Behe's "work".
http://www.philoonline.org/libra…
- IRNlun60
0
buffering...*waving fist, curses proxy
- discipler0
Peer-Reviewed periodicals that have published articles by ID proponents:
- International Society for Complexity
- ISCID
- Journal of Theoretical Biology
- Review of Scientific Instruments
- International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes...to name just a few.
For further info on this issue:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07…
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
- discipler0
Here are a few good responses to the critics, from Behe:
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06…
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08…