GCT
Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
 3-->| Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 23 2006,013) | GCT,
I know nothing of what Dembski may or may not say about his religious beliefs. If I see it in context, I might have an opinion. I think science may prove to be consonent with God, but not with particular dogma or religion. If he privately thinks so and says so to a religious group, then that's his business. But as with all people, it is very hard to allow truth to be what it will be, if one has inner desires. |
I see now. What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic. Nice double standard you've got going there.
Try these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005....nt.html
| Quote | | You have twisted this. The projection had nothing to do with evidence, it was about your assessment of the behaviors of the ID crowd that I called projection. Such as being impervious to evidence. |
The twisting was not intentional. I did not get your point. I will now answer your charge.
When the ID crowd uses old arguments that Creationists came up with 20+ years ago that have been discarded (and the adherents have admitted that they put the Bible first, science second) then, yes, I would say that's pretty strong evidence that the IDers are impervious to evidence.
| Quote | | Well, you must realize that the evidence you speak of is the same evidence that IDists are aware of, and it is no doubt why most of them accept evolution as a slow unfolding of life and one or a few common ancestors (some of them?) but they do not agree with all the interpretations of said evidence. |
Oh, so IDists use the same evidence, but interpret it differently? OK, let's examine this. What evidence is there that any designer exists? Seriously. All Behe and Dembski, et. al. have done is say that it looks designed to them, so it must be. That, however, is not how science is done. I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses. Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are? What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did. Unfortunately for you, everything and anything is evidence for that idea, and so it is completely useless to us and unscientific.
| Quote | | I don't get what you're saying here. |
You made the statement that scientists accept evolution because they want to be right, that their egos obscure what you find obvious. I was asking you if their egos are to blame for the fact that humans and chimps (and all mammals for that matter) share such genetic similarities.
| Quote | | I do not agree that paleontology verifies gradualism. But as for geology, I can only say that I never have thought all animals arrived at once or quickly. As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted. |
Nice goal post move. Considering that you haven't yet defined what you mean by "gradualism" and that that's not what I said or what I was arguing, I have to conclude that once again you are grasping at straws. Paleontological finds as well as geology both verify the predictions of evolution. We find wonderful transitional fossils at the time periods that make sense. They all verify each other. By denying evolution, you also deny those other fields of science. Period.
|
