Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 13097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Abiogenic production of amino acids in the lab is but one of them.  It demonstrates that there is a set of mechanisms by which the building blocks of life can come about naturally.

What is the mechanism proposed by ID?

An Intelligent Designer.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
BibleStudent,

Why don't you explain why a naturalistic explanation is less plausible than ID, because I'm at a loss as to how a god can cause life to arise without affecting nature. It's like expecting Matt Groening to be able to manipulate the movements of Homer Simpson without drawing him.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Abiogenic production of amino acids in the lab is but one of them.  It demonstrates that there is a set of mechanisms by which the building blocks of life can come about naturally.

What is the mechanism proposed by ID?

An Intelligent Designer.

If you asked the mechanism by which your car was fixed, and someone said "by deliberate intent", that wouldn't really answer the question, would it?

No more than yours answers mine.

What is the mechanism of abiogenesis proposed by ID?  I get that you think a designer was involved.  Great.  What mechanism did it use?

EDIT:  This doesn't have to be a definitive answer.  That would be hypocritical to ask.  But any proposed mechanism would be great.  Anything at all.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 06:29:44 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1934
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
If you asked the mechanism by which your car was fixed, and someone said "on purpose", that wouldn't really answer the question, would it?

No more than yours answers mine.

What is the mechanism of abiogenesis proposed by ID?  I get that you think a designer was involved.  Great.  What mechanism did it use?

EDIT:  This doesn't have to be a definitive answer.  That would be hypocritical to ask.  But any proposed mechanism would be great.  Anything at all.

You must have missed his not-at-all-subtle constant capitalization of Designer and Creator.

I point this out primarily to ensure that BibleStudent's presupposition (intentional or otherwise) isn't obscured from view...
...but he has pretty consistently typed Creator, not creator.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point that out that. It is intentional.

The mechanism he proposes is divine magic.

Why he keeps pretending that he doesn't have a religious agenda...
Why he keeps pretending that ID doesn't have a religious agenda...
...divine magic I guess.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
That would be the lack of any definable mechanism.  If he admits as much openly, then I'll walk away from this happily.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.
You did not answer the question I actually asked.

I asked you why all of the people who actually support intelligent design are religious (specifically, Christians).  Please answer that this time.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?
That presupposes that they have, in fact, "written off any hope of discovering a Creator".  Science is not about finding what you 'hope' to find, it is about finding what's actually out there to find.  Someone who only looks for what he believes should exist (or wants to exist) is not practicing science in any way, shape, or form.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1712
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
...I rest my case.

This is why it's all but impossible to talk to creationists about science - you folks have no idea what you are arguing against, particularly regarding the scientific method and what the ToE actually claims.

And you're also applying "survival of the fittest" incorrectly.
Quote
Oh I see. So you believe the numerous responses that explained why you are wrong in calling this "science" are feeble? In that case...

What I received was responses based on individual interpretations of what science is and what science does. No one cited where these so-called boundaries (demarcation) originate from. In other words, technically speaking, the scientific method is being employed by IDT but being disregarded as pseudoscience based on what amounts to nothing more than personal opinions. It is simply not possible to invalidate IDT as science because it follows all of the rules.

Again, you don't understand what you are attempting to argue against well enough to make a case of any sort - and this quoted reply demonstrates that.

You've been told repeatedly. Given your inability to grasp what you are being told, I can only draw a few potential conclusions. You aren't actually reading the replies you are getting (but you do quote them, so maybe you are reading them); you don't actually understand what is written (more likely than the previous), or you are willfully resisting understanding what is being written (which is pretty dishonest). In any case, I have to drop out of this discussion before I forget to resist the urge to speak to you contemptuously.

Enjoy your stay.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (the God of the Bible). The naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution along with the various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis all present an alternate view but, even collectively, they come up way too short to convince me. There are so many assumptions guesses, dishonesty, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it. Phylogenetics, for me, only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor. Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent. And, evolution cannot explain our desire to create things like art and music. Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs. The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved….and on and on I could go. These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit. Also, I could add numerous more unanswerable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that discussions about abiogenesis creates. Do I think the ToE is a complete farce? Absolutely not….and I have said this numerous times so please don't start flaming me for making these comments.
 
I find the moral argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (contemporary version), Intelligent Design Theory, the Ontological Argument (still trying to really understand this one), and the historical reliability of the Bible to be among the most influential in my belief.

I find the Bible to be an exceptional, accurate, and convincing account of why the world and life exists.

Christianity logically satisfies my need to understand:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.


This does not answer my question.

I asked, specifically, what ID is more plausible than and what gives it this plausibility. Since both evolution and abiogenesis can both be accepted without contradicting the concept of ID then I don't see why you consider them as being an alternative. That's like saying that teh sport of football is an alternative to the concept of referees.

Also, even if you discard both evolution and the current model of abiogenesis, you still need to provide a theory about how it was done. The concept of a designer exists completely separately from an understanding of the process by which  said creation takes place.

A deist god may have used abiogenesis and evolution to create the human race as it exists now.can you explain how this possibility can be if evolution and abiogenesis stand in opposition to a designer as you say?
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Abiogenic production of amino acids in the lab is but one of them.  It demonstrates that there is a set of mechanisms by which the building blocks of life can come about naturally.

What is the mechanism proposed by ID?

An Intelligent Designer.

If you asked the mechanism by which your car was fixed, and someone said "by deliberate intent", that wouldn't really answer the question, would it?

No more than yours answers mine.

What is the mechanism of abiogenesis proposed by ID?  I get that you think a designer was involved.  Great.  What mechanism did it use?

EDIT:  This doesn't have to be a definitive answer.  That would be hypocritical to ask.  But any proposed mechanism would be great.  Anything at all.

I answered your question. The Intelligent Designer is the mechanism. Why is that difficult to understand?

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Abiogenic production of amino acids in the lab is but one of them.  It demonstrates that there is a set of mechanisms by which the building blocks of life can come about naturally.

What is the mechanism proposed by ID?

An Intelligent Designer.

If you asked the mechanism by which your car was fixed, and someone said "by deliberate intent", that wouldn't really answer the question, would it?

No more than yours answers mine.

What is the mechanism of abiogenesis proposed by ID?  I get that you think a designer was involved.  Great.  What mechanism did it use?

EDIT:  This doesn't have to be a definitive answer.  That would be hypocritical to ask.  But any proposed mechanism would be great.  Anything at all.

I answered your question. The Intelligent Designer is the mechanism. Why is that difficult to understand?

No, the intelligent designer is the agent. in the above analogy the mechanic who fixes the car would be the agent. The mechanism that the mechanic uses to fix the car is a separate question from who fixed it.

DO you understand the difference between mechanism and agent now?

The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
I answered your question. The Intelligent Designer is the mechanism. Why is that difficult to understand?

I'm an intelligent designer of reports on geology.  I have a mechanism through which I compose them, though.  My simply being an intelligent designer doesn't poof them into existence, unless I actually do something.

If ID hasn't even thought up a hypothetical mechanism for their hypothetical designer to use, then at least be honest about it.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 09:49:37 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
BibleStudent,

Why don't you explain why a naturalistic explanation is less plausible than ID, because I'm at a loss as to how a god can cause life to arise without affecting nature. It's like expecting Matt Groening to be able to manipulate the movements of Homer Simpson without drawing him.

Makes no sense. Nature exists because of the intelligence and creative power of God.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I answered your question. The Intelligent Designer is the mechanism. Why is that difficult to understand?

I'm an intelligent designer of reports on geology.  I have a mechanism through which I compose them, though.

If ID hasn't even thought up a hypothetical mechanism for their hypothetical designer to use, then at least be honest about it.

If we, as humans (being intelligent), are capable of genetic engineering, then why is it so difficult to understand that an Intelligent Designer would have the ability to create DNA and then manipulate it in such a way as to create a variety of functions and structures?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
No, the intelligent designer is the agent. in the above analogy the mechanic who fixes the car would be the agent. The mechanism that the mechanic uses to fix the car is a separate question from who fixed it.

DO you understand the difference between mechanism and agent now?

I have understood the difference between the agent and the mechanism all along. My beliefs are that the agent is both the designer and the mechanism by which life originated. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
I answered your question. The Intelligent Designer is the mechanism. Why is that difficult to understand?

I'm an intelligent designer of reports on geology.  I have a mechanism through which I compose them, though.

If ID hasn't even thought up a hypothetical mechanism for their hypothetical designer to use, then at least be honest about it.

If we, as humans (being intelligent), are capable of genetic engineering, then why is it so difficult to understand that an Intelligent Designer would have the ability to create DNA and then manipulate it in such a way as to create a variety of functions and structures?

The concept is easy to understand. However, an intelligent designer does not appear to be necessary, and there is no evidence that he exists, so we're gonna go with the the concept that is even easier to understand. That natural processes are adequate to create and evolve life. And that no outside forces were involved.

If you find any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure you'll let us know. But human imagination doesn't count.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
No, the intelligent designer is the agent. in the above analogy the mechanic who fixes the car would be the agent. The mechanism that the mechanic uses to fix the car is a separate question from who fixed it.

DO you understand the difference between mechanism and agent now?

I have understood the difference between the agent and the mechanism all along. My beliefs are that the agent is both the designer and the mechanism by which life originated. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You haven't specified any mechanism. A mechanic has to use his nerves to move his hands, which in turn move tools, which effect change in the car. There has to be a mechanism by which the agent manipulates the circumstances it wishes to act on. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
If we, as humans (being intelligent), are capable of genetic engineering, then why is it so difficult to understand that an Intelligent Designer would have the ability to create DNA and then manipulate it in such a way as to create a variety of functions and structures?

Without a mechanism by which it can do so, let alone a mechanism by which it does anything at all (like living), it can't.  A mechanism is the means.

You saying this really is like saying that a mechanic fixes cars just by being a mechanic, or that I can compose geological reports just by being a geologist.  Uhh, no, even intelligent beings have to actually do stuff in order to get anything done...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
The concept is easy to understand. However, an intelligent designer does not appear to be necessary, and there is no evidence that he exists, so we're gonna go with the the concept that is even easier to understand. That natural processes are adequate to create and evolve life. And that no outside forces were involved.

If you find any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure you'll let us know. But human imagination doesn't count.

This is where I believe you are gravely mistaken. The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life. It is my opinion that you have been duped into thinking they do. You recognize that science does not posess the answers and rely on faith that it will someday in order to craft a rationale argument for your belief.....similar to my faith that we will someday learn that God was the intelligence, designer, and creator of life.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
If we, as humans (being intelligent), are capable of genetic engineering, then why is it so difficult to understand that an Intelligent Designer would have the ability to create DNA and then manipulate it in such a way as to create a variety of functions and structures?

Without a mechanism by which it can do so, let alone a mechanism by which it does anything at all (like living), it can't.  A mechanism is the means.

You saying this really is like saying that a mechanic fixes cars just by being a mechanic, or that I can compose geological reports just by being a geologist.  Uhh, no, even intelligent beings have to actually do stuff in order to get anything done...

I completely understand the point you are making but identifying the specific mechanism you are looking for would require having an intimate knowledge of who the designer is.

As for me, the designer is God and according to the knowledge given in the Bible,He is capable of creating life as He sees fit by the power he possesses.

It is not necessary to identify a specific mechanism in order to conclude that an intelligent agent designed and created life.  That is to say that, if a living structure can be shown to possess the type of complexity and design that can only originate from an intelligent source, then the mechanism by which the intelligent agent created that structure is inconsequential.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You haven't specified any mechanism. A mechanic has to use his nerves to move his hands, which in turn move tools, which effect change in the car. There has to be a mechanism by which the agent manipulates the circumstances it wishes to act on. Why is this so difficult to understand?

It is not difficult to understand but explain why it is necessary to identify the Intelligent Designer's mechanism(s).

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
It is not necessary to identify a specific mechanism in order to conclude that an intelligent agent designed and created life.  That is to say that, if a living structure can be shown to possess the type of complexity and design that can only originate from an intelligent source, then the mechanism by which the intelligent agent created that structure is inconsequential.

OK, so what you are saying is : If there was a creator  then we don't have to understand how he did it, but on the other hand, if we think it was natural processes without a creator then we need to understand every detail or you deny that possibility.

That doesn't strike you as being the least bit inconsistent?

You have to hold your own hypothesis to the same level of scrutiny that you hold other hypotheses to. Otherwise it has no value.
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
You haven't specified any mechanism. A mechanic has to use his nerves to move his hands, which in turn move tools, which effect change in the car. There has to be a mechanism by which the agent manipulates the circumstances it wishes to act on. Why is this so difficult to understand?

It is not difficult to understand but explain why it is necessary to identify the Intelligent Designer's mechanism(s).
Because you claim to dismiss other hypothesis because you don't believe that their mechanisms can  explain the world as we see it today. According to your own logic, an inability to mechanistically describe a process is enough to dismiss a hypotheses about origins. So present the mechanics of your hypothesis so we can examine it in the same fashion.

PS: Answering a question with "why" stopped being acceptable when you were in grade school. Please act like an adult here. Answer the  question or admit you don't have an answer.
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I have understood the difference between the agent and the mechanism all along. My beliefs are that the agent is both the designer and the mechanism by which life originated. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Because you're being obtuse.  Let's say I throw a punch.  In that case, I was the actor (the one who threw the punch), but my body was the mechanism (how the punch was thrown).  So in every single case, the actor and the mechanism can be described separately.  Yet you're insisting on just saying they're the same thing without making any effort to distinguish between them, which has no explanatory power and thus isn't useful.

By saying that the agent is both the designer and the mechanism, you're conceding that it isn't a scientific explanation.  Take the sun, for example.  If you were to say that the sun produces light and heat because it's the sun, it wouldn't be a scientific explanation (indeed, it'd be circular logic).  The way to make it a scientific explanation is to propose an explanation for how the sun produces light and heat, one that can be tested against the reality and shown to be false, if it comes to that.

Intelligent design fails to do that, because you're not proposing an explanation for how the intelligent designer operated that could be tested against reality and proven false.  Indeed, you can't - because if you did and ended up being wrong, then you'd be left without a foundation to base your worldview on.  You depend too much on believing that there is a god to take the chance that there might not be one, even if that were the only way to prove it to anyone else.

Also, answer the question I asked you in my last post.

"I asked you why all of the people who actually support intelligent design are religious (specifically, Christians).  Please answer that this time."

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
I completely understand the point you are making but identifying the specific mechanism you are looking for would require having an intimate knowledge of who the designer is.

I am not asking you to identify a specific mechanism.  I am asking about what mechanisms ID has put forth as scientific hypotheses.

For example, abiogenesis could occur in the laboratory of an advanced alien race, after which the aliens planted their intelligently designed microbes on Earth.  One could posit a mechanism through which that abiogenesis might conceivably be carried out, without any need to actually identify these aliens.  That mechanism could then be tested for plausibility.

That is one avenue for proposing a mechanism by which intelligent design could have seeded the Earth with life.

I doubt it is a mechanism you or other ID'ers would favor.  If not, then by all means put forth something of your own.  Got anything?  Anything at all?  I would find it sadly easy to believe that nobody in the ID community has actually been curious enough to investigate this.

As for me, the designer is God and according to the knowledge given in the Bible,He is capable of creating life as He sees fit by the power he possesses.

Fortunately for us all, reality is not at the beck and call of your personal convictions.  You do not live in a separate universe in which "as for me" gets to dictate reality.  I'm glad, though, that you acknowledge that for you, ID is not a matter of science, but a matter of religion.

It is not necessary to identify a specific mechanism in order to conclude that an intelligent agent designed and created life.

No, all you need is some cultural conditioning to that effect.

That is to say that, if a living structure can be shown to possess the type of complexity and design that can only originate from an intelligent source, then the mechanism by which the intelligent agent created that structure is inconsequential.

Two big problems with this, before and after the comma.

Before the comma:  A critical level of complexity has never been demonstrated to prove design.  This is old stuff, though.
After the comma:  It is absolutely consequential, to showing that design was possible in the first place.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

Excellent! So you would support equal teaching of various other creation myths... say the Hindu myth or any of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths ? Now there are quite a lot of them, so, say, 3 a week and the Judeo-Christian creation myth would be no more or less prominent than any of the others?

I agree. Teach the controversy! The controversy is that only one creation myth is taught.

How does teaching a Hindu myth have anything to do with teaching Intelligent Design? ID is not a religion. Strange analogy.

In my opinion, ID is precisely a religion pretending to not be a religion.

Not quite AFAIC, it is a sciencey sounding blanket theists throw over their religion in order to sneak it into schools and crowd out actual science.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
This is where I believe you are gravely mistaken.
One of you two is, anyway.  Do you have the integrity to admit that you could be the one wrong, instead of him?

Quote from: BibleStudent
The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life.
If this thread is going to go anywhere, you need to stop with the weasel-wording.  What you really mean here is "I don't think the natural processes are adequate to create and evolve life."  But the fact of the matter is that you don't actually know one way or the other.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It is my opinion that you have been duped into thinking they do.
Your opinion and a dollar might buy you a fountain drink at a convenience store.  To put it a little less politely, your opinion is worthless on its own.

Quote from: BibleStudent
You recognize that science does not posess the answers
That's true, but not for the reason you assume.  Science doesn't give us the answers to anything - answers are useless by themselves, including the answers your religious belief gives you.  What it does is give us the ability to ask meaningful questions.  And it's those questions which drive us.

Quote from: BibleStudent
and rely on faith that it will someday in order to craft a rationale argument for your belief.....similar to my faith that we will someday learn that God was the intelligence, designer, and creator of life.
No, he doesn't rely on faith.  Faith is an anchor, tying you to a favored answer, and one you can't abandon if it ends up being wrong.  Whereas he doesn't know the answer, so he doesn't assume that any given answer is right simply because it's the one he wants to be true.

Can you say the same?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
OK, so what you are saying is : If there was a creator  then we don't have to understand how he did it, but on the other hand, if we think it was natural processes without a creator then we need to understand every detail or you deny that possibility.

That doesn't strike you as being the least bit inconsistent?

You have to hold your own hypothesis to the same level of scrutiny that you hold other hypotheses to. Otherwise it has no value.

I completely agree with you here. My position is that I can examine all of the scientific evidence we have, including Intelligent Design Theory, and conclude that it substantially compliments other arguments and evidence (including Biblical) for the existence of God which then collectively forms a strong basis for my belief in God.

Likewise, you could substitute the theory of evolution (or some other word or phrase that adequately identifies your worldview) for God in a paragraph similar to mine above and state that you are claiming a comparable or superior basis for your beliefs.

The point is, you cannot invalidate my claim (or belief) based on your belief or the manner in which you went about forming that belief. In other words, you cannot eliminate the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer based soley on the evidence you use to form your belief.

I am convinced that my belief in God is correct and I can feel confident in that belief because it is based on a strong rational argument.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
This is where I believe you are gravely mistaken.
One of you two is, anyway.  Do you have the integrity to admit that you could be the one wrong, instead of him?

As of right now, no, I do not believe that I am wrong. The evidence is much too strong for me to make an admission that I could be wrong. That could change but as of right now, the answer is no.

Quote
No, he doesn't rely on faith.  Faith is an anchor, tying you to a favored answer, and one you can't abandon if it ends up being wrong.  Whereas he doesn't know the answer, so he doesn't assume that any given answer is right simply because it's the one he wants to be true.

Then, by your analogy, he is compelled to admit that Intelligent Design is a possibility that warrants careful consideration along with further investigation and study.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
As of right now, no, I do not believe that I am wrong. The evidence is much too strong for me to make an admission that I could be wrong. That could change but as of right now, the answer is no.
So, it's all the people who disagree with you who are wrong; you, of course, are right, because you couldn't possibly have misunderstood any of that evidence or made a mistake somewhere or come to a wrong conclusion or even just let your preconceived notions get in the way.  It doesn't matter how much thought anyone else put into it, or what evidence they have, or anything else.  They're wrong, and you're right, and as far as you're concerned, that's all there is to it?

Haven't you realized just how arrogant that attitude is?  How monumentally egotistical that attitude of yours is?  Of course you could be wrong!  So could I.  The difference between us is that I'm capable of admitting it, because I haven't based the foundation of my worldview on being right about a specific god existing.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Then, by your analogy, he is compelled to admit that Intelligent Design is a possibility that warrants careful consideration along with further investigation and study.
A possibility, yes.  I don't think anyone here has actually said that it's impossible.  However, it's up to you and people like you to back up that possibility with evidence.  Yet despite you saying that the evidence was very strong, you haven't actually presented any real evidence, nor has anyone in the ID movement.  It's always taking something that has to be viewed a very specific way in order to fit into the picture you've already decided it must form.

That isn't science.  Science is when you take the puzzle pieces as they come and try to figure out how they fit together, rather than trying to make them fit how you think they should fit.