Joined: June 2008
|Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)|
|About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.|
Defecting from Darwinian Naturalism: A Review of Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos William A. Dembski
That's sort of what separates intellectually honest people from, well, you, Dembski.
We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.
It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. †Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.
I bought the Nagel book in e-format because I thought I might do a review of it. Complete mush, repetitive argument from incredulity. Nods to but ignores ID, cites Meyer, Behe, Berlinski... but not Dembski!! That's gotta hurt.
Basic argument - Science can't be all there is to explaining the universe, because I want to believe Mind is more than what the brain does. If I can state the question it must have value. Common sense must always be able to explain the universe.
He hasn't seem to have heard of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, Godel's Incompleteness Proof, etc. and what they say about 'common sense' explaining the universe. Another old philosopher afraid of dying and even more afraid of the irrelevancy of his life's work.
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima