Texas Teach
Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007
|
| Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 21 2014,18:22) | | Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01) | | Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39) | | Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03) | Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men: | Quote | But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.
ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind. |
The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction. |
Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?! |
I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:
Protein folds as platonic forms....
He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"
These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!
Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God? |
The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen! |
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Quark?
--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
