RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 443 444 445 446 447 [448] 449 450 451 452 453 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,14:54   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,14:57)
If the light reaching the Earth is reduced by particles, wouldn't that mean that evolution would favour the selection of red-light synthesising plants? Did this happen?

As for the  "heat island" idea. Surely at some point those islands would meet up over time and regularity would they not? If so, when would that be? (probably said that badly: to rephrase: At what point would the "heat islands" be so numerous as to have a global rather than a local effect?).

You're confusing intensity with the wavelength/frequency (energy) of light.

Yes, it's true that Beer's Law (a concept every freshman in college should be familiar with) with respect to transmittance is logarithmic (wrt absorbance - the negative log of transmittance- it is linear). But that's wrt intensity at any particular wavelength, not wrt wavelength itself. Every molecule has an absorption spectrum and some wavelengths are absorbed and others aren't so much. CO2 absorbs well in the infrared, which is associated with heat transfer. That's what makes it a "greenhouse" gas. So, at higher and higher concentrations of CO2, the amount of light absorbed starts falling off exponentially. The thing is though, the oceans couldn't possibly pump out enough CO2 to cause this runaway greenhouse effect, like we see on Venus. I may be wrong about that, though.

You know, I hope I'm not telling you anything you already know.

I think, if we have to be worried about anything, it's methane hydrates in the ocean. the leading theory of how the Permian mass extinction happened involves these. If the oceans warm about 5 C, then a lot of these methane hydrates would melt and release vast amounts of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This would cause even more warming, releasing even more methane, and so on. But, this process took tens of thousands of years during the Permian. And, of course, the oceans didn't boil.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,15:20   

O'Dreary:
Quote
It sounds, from the article, as though concepts like “dark matter” and “dark energy” must become more specific to provide useful information.

Yeah, it looks as though concepts like "design," "CSI," amd "irreducible complexity" must become more specific to provide useful information.

Oh, we can actually, according to theory, calculate the amount of dark matter and dark energy relative to regular matter and energy? Hmm, but we can't calculate, according to any theory, the amount of irreducible complexity versus the amount of regular complexity? Or, the amount of CSI versus the amount of regular information, for any given biological structure?

Quote
This article is a must-read, though I don’t go along with the underlying pessimistic assumption that maybe our limited senses prevent us from understanding these things.

Translation: "I don't agree that we should rely solely on observation, but we can also rely on revelation and what an ancient book says."

Quote
That sounds like Darwinism talking, actually. You know the sort of thing: We are just evolved apes and can’t understand whatever is not in our genetic program to understand, including this problem.

Sure, that's Darwinian thinking all right.  :(
Or maybe I can say that creationism talking is: Since we can't understand something right this moment, godidit.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,20:54   

Here is some info on oceans and methane hydrates and the Permian extinction event

Stephen - note that this "UN-listed" scientist, Gavin Schmidt, actually works for NASA, not the UN.   He's also a founder of, and frequent contributor to, Real Climate.

NASA also employs two well-known skeptics, Christy and Spencer, whose work with satellite data "proved" that the troposphere is actually cooling slightly, not warming.

So much for the claims by the likes of Lindzen that skeptics are discriminated against, can't get work, blah blah blah (sounds a bit llike the UD claims that "darwinism" would collapse if the Science Cabal didn't prevent honest researchers from getting jobs, doesn't it?)

Unfortunately for Christy and Spencer, they made a few basic algebraic and one sign error and the data actually shows warming when analyzed properly (which they both grudgingly agree with now, both having switched to variants of the "it will be good for us" argument).

  
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,21:45   

Here's the syllabus to Dembski's course at Southern Baptist.  If there are any more questions about his motives (other than to stuff his bank account) look at course objectives.
   
Quote
William A. Dembski  [updated 01.17.07]    
What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.  –Jeremy LaBorde      

Course Description:  How do we get people to believe things? This course examines the means by which we  convince ourselves and others that something is true. Of special interest here are the  pitfalls to logical thinking that prevent us from coming to the truth.  

Course Objective:  The goal of this course is to help students become adept at making a persuasive case for  the truth of the Christian worldview.    

Reading List:  [NCM]  Nancey C. Murphy, Reasoning and Rhetoric in Religion (Valley Forge, Penn.:  Trinity Press International, 1994; republished 2001 by Wipf & Stock).  [GJ] Gary Jason, Critical Thinking: Developing an Effective Worldview (Belmont,  Calif.: Wadsworth, 2001).  [G&E]  Robert Greene and Joost Elffers, The 48 Laws of Power (New York: Penguin  Putnam, 2000).     Semester Grade:  
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  
(6)  In-class quizzes — up to 20 percent negative.


   
Quote
Readings:  
(1)  NCM, ch. 1. GJ, chs. 1-3.  
(2)  NCM, ch. 2. GJ, chs. 4,5.  
(3)  NCM, ch. 3. GJ, ch. 6. G&E, Laws 1-4.  
(4)  NCM, ch. 4. GJ, chs. 7,11. G&E, Laws 5-8.  
(5)  NCM, ch. 5. GJ, ch. 8. G&E, Laws 9-12.  
(6)  NCM, ch. 6. GJ, ch. 9. G&E, Laws 13-16.  
(7)  NCM, ch. 7. GJ, ch. 10. G&E, Laws 17-20.  
(8)  NCM, ch. 8. GJ, ch. 12. G&E, Laws 21-24.  
(9)  NCM, ch. 9. GJ, ch. 13. G&E, Laws 25-28.  
(10)  NCM, ch. 10. GJ, ch. 14. G&E, Laws 29-32.  
(11)  NCM, ch. 11. GJ, ch. 15. G&E, Laws 33-36.  
(12)  NCM, ch. 12. GJ, ch. 16. G&E, Laws 37-40.  
(13)  NCM, ch. 13. GJ, ch. 17. G&E, Laws 41-44.  
(14)  NCM, ch. 14. GJ, ch. 18. G&E, Laws 45-48.        

Instructor: William A. Dembski  
Email (primary): wdembski AT designinference.com  
Email (secondary): wdembski AT swbts.edu  
Office: Scarborough 206A  
Phone: 817.923.1921 x4435  
Office Hours: after class Thursdays and by appointment    
Course: PHREL 5373 A  
Term: Spring 2007  
Time: TR 1:00-2:15 pm  
Place: Scarborough 14  
Online: [URL=http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
[B]

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,23:29   

The quiz answers are very telling:

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,00:27   

What kind of IDiot puts simple quiz answers on the web in PDF format?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,00:43   

Quote

phonon Posted on Mar. 17 2007,22:20
O'Dreary:
Quote

That sounds like Darwinism talking, actually. You know the sort of thing: We are just evolved apes and can’t understand whatever is not in our genetic program to understand, including this problem.


Sure, that's Darwinian thinking all right.  
Or maybe I can say that creationism talking is: Since we can't understand something right this moment, godidit.


OK let me get this straight.

Because we evolved from apes and therefore g$d as written in the bible is irrelevant and totally inconsequential (unless the fundy pulls a trigger or invades a country on 'instructions from g$d') then we are not programmed by our 'genetics' to believe in g4d because chimpanzees don't believe in god?

Still with me?

OK Since g<3d didn't program ape's genetics with a g9d gene (because we don't have one according to Darwinism ... I know it's bumpy but hold on folks)....then that means g€d doesn't actually exist...if Darwinism is right?

So because we are darwinistically programmed not to understand g&d unless you accept divine nondarwinistic ID ......as sold on Sunday in all the best Christian intellect ghettos.....then we can't possibly understand this problem.

...OK...

.....takes breather.....geez denize how can you write with ur head up ur arse?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:33   

It is obvious that Dembski is just another shill for Jesus.  He is about as upright and honorable as the squished silverfish on the sole of my shoe.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1974
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2007,22:29)
The quiz answers are very telling:

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

Hey, but there's a great quote-mine:
Quote
The virgin birth of Christ is absolutely inconceivable and meaningless
(exercise 2, question 2e)


It's even in his own handwriting!

Bob

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:59   

Studies in apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design (SBTS #28677)

http://www.designinference.com/teachin....677.pdf


So he admits that ID is apologetics. Thanks, Bill.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,02:03   

If you want a quality eductaion..

http://www.designinference.com/teachin....o_6.pdf


d0_ob

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,03:02   

I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
   
Quote
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,04:09   

Quote (djmullen @ Mar. 18 2007,02:02)
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
   
Quote
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!

WHAT


You GOTTA be &*%#&$ kidding me.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Jake



Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,06:04   

Quote
I see Dembski is running his class on UD principles:
     
Quote
(1)  Mid-term exam — 20 percent positive.  
(2)  Final exam — 30 percent positive.  
(3)  Exercises — 50 percent positive. Exercises appear at the end of each chapter in  NCM. Answers to all these exercises need to be written out and handed in each  week.  
(4) Single-page executive summary of YOU (with clearly recognizable embedded  picture of yourself) — minus 5 percent if not handed in. Due beginning of second  week of class.  
(5) Active class participation — up to 10 percent negative.  

Or, in English, active participation can't possibly help your grade, but if you participate anyway and Dembski doesn't like what you say, it will cost you grade points!


To be fair, this could also be read this as 'if you do not participate actively in class discussions, you will lose marks', which is fair enough. The course outline PDF has this written as 'full class participation', next to 'punctual attendance' - surely people arent going to lose marks for being on time!

  
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,07:49   

I honestly feel sorry for any student that is willing to take a Dembski class, especially the "Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design" course.  Any student taking that course is obviously too stupid to think about getting their tuition fees refunded.  For christ's sake, recommended reading includes a book by Dense O'Leary.  That alone is enough for me to pity the fools.  Does anyone know what kind of salary Dumbski draws for teaching at the Seminary?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8912
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:19   

"Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design"

Nice of Bill to make our point for us, isn't it?

Now, that's the kind of thing that could get a person banned over at UD/OE...

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:29   

kairosfocus        
Quote
PS: I add that from the “predicted but not observed declines in Jamaica” study, there is also an issue of HOMOZYGOTE SS viability thus “protective” effect, or at least sufficient non-lethality to survive and persist in the population.

I should think that sickle cell anemia is far more survivable and less debilitating in modern Jamaica than when people were forced to work as slaves in sugar cane fields. I could be wrong.  

(A sickle cell crisis can be triggered by excessive exercise, dehydration, or stress. Symptoms vary considerably, but include acute pain, infection, stroke, organ failure and death. It's doubtful most slaveowners of the period would consistently allow people to take a few days off for rest and recovery followed by a lifetime of light duty. But I could be wrong.)

kairosfocus        
Quote
[Note too, the reference to counselling, i.e. to hoped-for artificial selection; aka microevolution by intelligent design. H’mm, isn’t that what Darwin used as a “substitute” for NS in his own studies and reported on in Origin?]

Very Mendelian. Heaven forbid we counsel a married couple, each of whom is a carrier of the sickle cell trait, that one in four of their children may inherit sickle cell disease.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:31   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,15:19)
"Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design"

Nice of Bill to make our point for us, isn't it?

Now, that's the kind of thing that could get a person banned over at UD/OE...

Bill has obviously given up all hope of ever seeing ID counted as science.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,10:39   

DaveScot  
Quote
Engineering deals with non-material causes all the time. Such causes are called “acts of God”.

http://scholar.google.com/scho.....#038;hl=en

Now that I’ve answered your question you can hopefully answer mine.


I've pointed this out before but "Acts of God" does not mean "non-material cause" it means "Events that couldn't have been prevented by human foresight and for which no human could be held responsible".  A bolt of lightning may be termed "Act of God" in an insurance contract, but it actually has a material cause.  There's nothing in that Google Scholar search to suggest otherwise.

Normally DS would verify that using wikipedia and then try and find some special case in which he might have been right, or write a new post claiming he knew that all along. I'm surprised he could just repeat something so obviously wrong.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,10:52   

Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 18 2007,09:39)
DaveScot    
Quote
Engineering deals with non-material causes all the time. Such causes are called “acts of God”.

http://scholar.google.com/scho.....#038;hl=en

Now that I’ve answered your question you can hopefully answer mine.


I've pointed this out before but "Acts of God" does not mean "non-material cause" it means "Events that couldn't have been prevented by human foresight and for which no human could be held responsible".  A bolt of lightning may be termed "Act of God" in an insurance contract, but it actually has a material cause.  There's nothing in that Google Scholar search to suggest otherwise.

Normally DS would verify that using wikipedia and then try and find some special case in which he might have been right, or write a new post claiming he knew that all along. I'm surprised he could just repeat something so obviously wrong.

Dave still has to learn his logical fallacies: Conflation.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,13:16   

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 17 2007,19:33)
It is obvious that Dembski is just another shill for Jesus.  He is about as upright and honorable as the squished silverfish on the sole of my shoe.

What have you got against silverfish? :O

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,15:37   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:19)
"Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design"

Nice of Bill to make our point for us, isn't it?

Now, that's the kind of thing that could get a person banned over at UD/OE...

His book, maybe his first book on inteligint disine, is called "ID: The Bridge Between Science and Theology" and it's required reading in his class.

ID isn't science, Bil says, it's the bridge to theology.

Does he think that state-run schools should teach kids how to follow the bridge to theology?

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,16:05   

Wow, poor kids in Dembski's class.

from: http://www.designinference.com/teachin....ers.pdf

   
Quote
Define “theistic realism”?

The view espoused by Phillip Johnson that because God is real, our understanding of the world must factor in this fact, and any worldview that fails to acknowledge this fact is woefully deficient.

What is the strongest argument, in Phillip Johnson’s view, against theistic realism?

The success of science. Science is supposed to have shown that God is superfluous.


I love that logic.

1. Assume god is real, go from there.
2. To assume god is not real is unrealistic

http://www.designinference.com/teachin....ers.pdf

   
Quote
Define naturalism.

The view that nature is all there is.

Uh, now define nature.

   
Quote
How is Isaiah 44:9-20 relevant to feminist theology?What is the punchline of this passage?

The passages discusses the making of idols. Feminist theology “reimagines” God and in so doing constructs an idol. The punchline of the passage is that in making an idol, the idolaters deceive.
themselves.

Ah, it has a punchline, so it must be a joke? What's the setup? And we can't have anyone "re-imagining" God. One imagining is enough.

Nice juxtaposition:
   
Quote
State the Vincentian Canon.

A criterion for Christian orthodoxy: what has been believed everywhere, at all times, and by all.

Who said “My policy is to have no policy”?Why is this a sound policy in war?

Abraham Lincoln. The point of this policy is to maintain flexibility. Situations can change quickly in war, and it is therefore not best to be rigidly tied to one set of plans.

So which is it? Did the DI abandon the Wedge Document as policy or is it believed everywhere, at all times, and by all? Extra credit question: Who are you going to believe, the Pope or Abraham Lincoln?

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,16:16   

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 17 2007,19:54)
Here is some info on oceans and methane hydrates and the Permian extinction event

Stephen - note that this "UN-listed" scientist, Gavin Schmidt, actually works for NASA, not the UN.   He's also a founder of, and frequent contributor to, Real Climate.

NASA also employs two well-known skeptics, Christy and Spencer, whose work with satellite data "proved" that the troposphere is actually cooling slightly, not warming.

So much for the claims by the likes of Lindzen that skeptics are discriminated against, can't get work, blah blah blah (sounds a bit llike the UD claims that "darwinism" would collapse if the Science Cabal didn't prevent honest researchers from getting jobs, doesn't it?)

Unfortunately for Christy and Spencer, they made a few basic algebraic and one sign error and the data actually shows warming when analyzed properly (which they both grudgingly agree with now, both having switched to variants of the "it will be good for us" argument).

So there are skeptics in the climatology community that aren't paid shills for oil companies? That's not what I heard.  

(just joshin' )  ;)

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,18:23   

Quote
So there are skeptics in the climatology community that aren't paid shills for oil companies? That's not what I heard.  

(just joshin' )

Those two are rather interesting, now that you mention it.  They work in the field (as does Lindzen), unlike the majority of denialists, most of whom aren't climatologists and often aren't even scientists, McKittrick is a mining engineer.

Oh, an engineer - sounds familiar, eh?

Also familiar-sounding will be the fact that Christy and Spencer are Southern Baptist fundies, much like Dembski ...

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,20:36   

Quote
Critical Thinking (SWBTS #PHREL 5373 A)
<> NEW! The midterm will be a take-home exam in which you write a 1500- to 2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s two-part video series against religion/ Christianity … Try to focus especially on Dawkins’s rhetorical moves to influence his viewers against religion. How skillful and effective is he? Where is his approach weak?
Always on the Dawkins. Dembski could have his students write about Gould, or Sagan, or Bertrand Russell for that matter. Dembski must feel some contra-connection to Dawkins, like arguing with a father figure. As for me, I only started reading Dawkins (because I was a Gould girl) after he and Behe kept mentioning him (so thanks, you two!).

There’s something that Dembski said in an online sermon that caught my attention, because I’m beginning to understand what makes him (and his Paley watch) tick:  
Quote
You’re at a football stadium and there’s a 100,000 people there, and everyone gets a coin, a penny, to flip. And you flip. And you say, “Okay, everyone who has heads, stay standing, and everyone who has tails, sit down. Now those who are still standing, you flip your coin again…” And the laws of probability are such that you can get 17 heads in a row, wherein somebody is still going to be standing. Okay, now: 17 heads in a row, one person is still standing in this football stadium of 100,000 people. And you say, “You are just a wonderful coin flipper! It’s just amazing what you’ve done!” [audience laughter]

Well, I laughed too, because this is such a mischaracterization of evolution once again! For one thing, it omits natural selection altogether (natural selection is not like coin flipping). But if Dembski is serious in viewing evolution in this manner, small wonder that he tries so hard to refute it. But after everything he’s written and said there’s just no excuse for him to be so uninformed.

Dembski contrasts this misconception of evolution with the analogy of the artist Michelangelo carving David out of marble, with no acknowledgement of the fact that a sculptor never just imposes his design upon his medium – the medium changes his design as he learns the limitations of the rock. Yet Dembski eschews God being limited at all by his medium, so the analogy with Michelangelo is not apt.

Dembski goes on to say in the lunchtime lecture that Intelligent Design is only really good for “clearing away the rubble” of atheism/naturalism/materialism, and is itself only a “negative” paradigm—Dembski actually says this, and I think what he means by that is that ID can only poke holes in evolution (quite an admission, that)—whereas “if you want to have a positive paradigm, study theology.”

[From "ID: Yesterday's Orthodoxy, Today's Heresy"]: “What we see with design in the world and in biology is God’s wonderful handiwork, and for God not to get the credit for that… If we’re not psyched about what we see in nature, if we don’t have a sense of wonder about what God has done there, I don’t see how we can sustain any vibrant Christian faith. If we don’t have a sense of wonder about creation, what God has wrought about creation, then what are we doing?...I think that’s what I find so disheartening about the Darwinian worldview, that it just destroys a sense of wonder about what God has done.”

Dembski also defines intelligent design “loosely” as “God, by wisdom, creating the world” and says, “If our doctrine of creation is wrong, then everything else down the line [the Fall, Christ’s sacrifice, redemption, etc.] is going to be wrong as well” and criticizes Process Theology and, apparently, theistic evolution (the "master of stealth" argument) which “dominates the mainline seminaries” too. Whoa, so Dembski says he accepts evolution, but he really doesn't.

So now I finally have proof that he’s trying to trick us, first into believing in design and in a generic Designer; second, into believing in the Christian God as the Designer who, as he says, “spoke the world into being.” Okay, William Albert Dembski. I’m an atheist and you’re a Christian, and you’re trying to convert me (whereas I don’t need you to give up Christianity but I wish you would first look at nature as it really is and acknowledge what it really does). Fine—that’s the right of free speech—we have the right to try to persuade each other. I just resent it when people are not honest about it!

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,20:59   

Hmm...

Quote
“If our doctrine of creation is wrong, then everything else down the line [the Fall, Christ’s sacrifice, redemption, etc.] is going to be wrong as well”


Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't that mean that Dembski is not only a creationist, but a Young Earth Creationist?

Unless the whole 6 days thing stopped being part of the Christian "doctrine of creation" at some point, and I missed it.

Where do you draw the line, Dr.Dr.? And why?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,21:01   

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 18 2007,19:36)
Quote
Critical Thinking (SWBTS #PHREL 5373 A)
<> NEW! The midterm will be a take-home exam in which you write a 1500- to 2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s two-part video series against religion/ Christianity … Try to focus especially on Dawkins’s rhetorical moves to influence his viewers against religion. How skillful and effective is he? Where is his approach weak?
Always on the Dawkins. Dembski could have his students write about Gould, or Sagan, or Bertrand Russell for that matter. Dembski must feel some contra-connection to Dawkins, like arguing with a father figure. As for me, I only started reading Dawkins (because I was a Gould girl) after he and Behe kept mentioning him (so thanks, you two!).

There’s something that Dembski said in an online sermon that caught my attention, because I’m beginning to understand what makes him (and his Paley watch) tick:    
Quote
You’re at a football stadium and there’s a 100,000 people there, and everyone gets a coin, a penny, to flip. And you flip. And you say, “Okay, everyone who has heads, stay standing, and everyone who has tails, sit down. Now those who are still standing, you flip your coin again…” And the laws of probability are such that you can get 17 heads in a row, wherein somebody is still going to be standing. Okay, now: 17 heads in a row, one person is still standing in this football stadium of 100,000 people. And you say, “You are just a wonderful coin flipper! It’s just amazing what you’ve done!” [audience laughter]

Well, I laughed too, because this is such a mischaracterization of evolution once again! For one thing, it omits natural selection altogether (natural selection is not like coin flipping). But if Dembski is serious in viewing evolution in this manner, small wonder that he tries so hard to refute it. But after everything he’s written and said there’s just no excuse for him to be so uninformed.

Dembski contrasts this misconception of evolution with the analogy of the artist Michelangelo carving David out of marble, with no acknowledgement of the fact that a sculptor never just imposes his design upon his medium – the medium changes his design as he learns the limitations of the rock. Yet Dembski eschews God being limited at all by his medium, so the analogy with Michelangelo is not apt.

Dembski goes on to say in the lunchtime lecture that Intelligent Design is only really good for “clearing away the rubble” of atheism/naturalism/materialism, and is itself only a “negative” paradigm—Dembski actually says this, and I think what he means by that is that ID can only poke holes in evolution (quite an admission, that)—whereas “if you want to have a positive paradigm, study theology.”

[From "ID: Yesterday's Orthodoxy, Today's Heresy"]: “What we see with design in the world and in biology is God’s wonderful handiwork, and for God not to get the credit for that… If we’re not psyched about what we see in nature, if we don’t have a sense of wonder about what God has done there, I don’t see how we can sustain any vibrant Christian faith. If we don’t have a sense of wonder about creation, what God has wrought about creation, then what are we doing?...I think that’s what I find so disheartening about the Darwinian worldview, that it just destroys a sense of wonder about what God has done.”

Dembski also defines intelligent design “loosely” as “God, by wisdom, creating the world” and says, “If our doctrine of creation is wrong, then everything else down the line [the Fall, Christ’s sacrifice, redemption, etc.] is going to be wrong as well” and criticizes Process Theology and, apparently, theistic evolution (the "master of stealth" argument) which “dominates the mainline seminaries” too. Whoa, so Dembski says he accepts evolution, but he really doesn't.

So now I finally have proof that he’s trying to trick us, first into believing in design and in a generic Designer; second, into believing in the Christian God as the Designer who, as he says, “spoke the world into being.” Okay, William Albert Dembski. I’m an atheist and you’re a Christian, and you’re trying to convert me (whereas I don’t need you to give up Christianity but I wish you would first look at nature as it really is and acknowledge what it really does). Fine—that’s the right of free speech—we have the right to try to persuade each other. I just resent it when people are not honest about it!

Well, now we know why the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory didn't want to testify under oath at Dover . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,22:44   

Lenny giggles:
 
Quote
Well, now we know why the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory didn't want to testify under oath at Dover . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)


It would seem he only half heartedly was ever going to testify at Dover.

Being the holder of 2 x Dr. Dr. get out of peer review for free tickets he must have thought he was the match for anyone who would DARE take on his masterful super ninja debating style, casts eyes to mirror and checks still has teenage girls in throws of adoration

A small prematch hiccup became a major choke event, once he sat accross the table from Hero for the Protection of the Enlightenment ™ Barbara Forrest at her deposition for the Dover trial.

The “Vise Strategy” Undone: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District By Barbara Forrest

For more chrunchy ID apocalypse goodness.... google "Barbara Forrest dembski dover pre-trial deposition"

The only Remora left on him after that was Dave Scott Springer. (Note DT  from that link "By sliding backward, the Remora can increase the suction" let us know how that works.)


He must know the only way to succeed with "Give unto Dembski what is god's and any cash you've got put in my bank account" would be to have a Fundification/GOPification of the judicial system.

No wonder Curse you Judge Jones was Demski's big excuse.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2007,01:07   

Quote (Faid @ Mar. 18 2007,18:59)

Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't that mean that Dembski is not only a creationist, but a Young Earth Creationist?Where do you draw the line, Dr.Dr.? And why?

My thought exactly.

If we evolved, when was "the Fall"?

Dembski wrote an essay about that, and identified "evil" as pre-existant to human beings, and I expected him to say something about, oh, when the first multicellular creature ate another, or something like that - introducing necessity into the world, simultaneously producing a wonderful new energy source and a horrible preditor-prey relationship. In other words, something plausible; something that could work with both science and religion. But no, he came up with some puppetmaster idea that made no sense to me.

He just wants to be told what to do by a dominant entity.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 443 444 445 446 447 [448] 449 450 451 452 453 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]