Albatrossity2
Posts: 2753
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (carlsonjok @ May 01 2008,16:29) | I saw it. Uthan's comment was something to the effect that Google Scholar had over 2 million hits on evolution and only 14 thousand for intelligent design. An interesting comparison made more interesting by someone pointing out the danger of assuming Google hits equate to legitimacy.
| Quote | | Google hits has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a science. Consider that Time Cube has approximately 75,000 google results. |
|
Uthan also commented on the Oxford conference thread, and this comment is still up (for now) | Quote | From the papers:
Thirdly, I will ask the question whether it is theologically warranted to conclude that the intelligent designer of ID can be the God of Christian theology. In other words, one can ask whether believers should want the designer of ID to be the God they worship. I doubt whether that is the case, by describing Karl Barth’s Kant’s inspired criticism of natural theology. I conclude that ID is an example of ‘the domestication of transcendence’, and that theologians should reject ID as a theological illusion, built to blind the faithful.
That was from one of the papers submitted, Taede Smedes
Catholic University of Louvain
http://tinyurl.com/6zpkte
Ouch!
|
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
