Joined: Jan. 2008
BarryA annoys the YECs at UD:
|No matter how long and hard you argue with a YEC proponent you will never convince him based on appeals to the evidence. Yes, he has the same evidence that you do, but he interprets that evidence within a different interpretive framework. You might think his interpretive framework is flawed, but you cannot say, as a matter of strict logic, that his interpretive framework must necessarily be flawed. In other words, you must admit that as a matter of strict logic it is possible for light to be slower now than it was in the past. And given the premise of some YECs that light is in fact slower now than it was in the past is, their conclusions might then follow. |
He then proceeds to liken the poor YECs with the evil, evil TEs while simultanously criticising the TEs for ignoring the Bible.
|TEs are like YECs in this respect — they cling to a scientific view that runs counter to the obvious evidence because of their prior commitments. [...]|
Now notice the similarity between TEs and YECs: Everyone concedes that the universe appears to be billions of years old; everyone concedes that living things appear to have been designed for a purpose. YECs say the first appearance is an illusion. TEs say the second appearance is an illusion. [...]
YECs reject the “obvious” conclusion about the age of the universe because of their prior commitments. Why do TEs reject the “obvious” conclusion about the design of living things? Further, why do TEs reject that obvious conclusion in the very teeth of the Biblical injunction to regard the appearance of design as proof of God’s existence (Romans 1).
They all seem to have given up on pretending it is all about science. Although Dembski is still trying:
|Theologically speaking, ID imposes few limits and is compatible with God acting at all levels of creation and through all modes of causation. When design is detected, God is active. And when design is not detected, God is still active. This doesn't make ID contentless. Rather, it means that ID is largely neutral with respect to one's doctrine of God, a fact that should not be surprising given that ID is compatible not only with Judeo-Christian theism but also with just about any religious view that regards purpose as basic to reality. ID's content is scientific, not religious or theological. Insofar as it has metaphysical implications, it is in challenging naturalism.|
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner