RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Is ID Dead?, Pat says yes, PZ says no< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:29   

Lately the babblings of the IDers have been particularly pathetic and weak, and I've taken to calling this the Long Twilight of Intelligent Design. Everybody can see that ID has been a catastrophic failure, even some of its supporters.

PZ and Pat are having something of a disagreement, though.

Here's Pat's take

And here's PZ's take

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:49   

I rather like:

William Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog has, since the Dover decision, been turned over to a small group of bathrobed basement activists whose writing indicates they are increasingly disassociated from reality. Dembski himself has made a series of bizarre charges against a range of scientists which he has later had to retract, but the lesson, it seems, is never learned.

Like zombies, this small cadre of intelligent design activists will live on, but the opportunity to win others to their ranks has now passed, and nowhere is that fact clearer than in the inward-looking writing of the ID activists themselves.


--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:58   

Steve,

Sadly, I agree completely with PZ.

Why sadly? Because this isn't a fight we are ever going going to stop fighting. There are always going to be religious people who wish to take their religious faith as a superior model of reality than the actual evidence (i.e. actual reality).

One point I have been thinking about a lot recently is the "making your own institutions" that PZ mentioned. Religious identity is so intimately tied to cultural and personal identity that for many people these three are inseperable. Take the person out of the gigachurch (although I think the next factor up, the terachurch, is more appropriate. Terror indeed) and show them the problems with this heightened religiosity and it's like you are telling them they are not a citizen of their country or a proper person or even themselves.

I'm buggered if I know what the answer is. But the idea of setting up our own institutions is a good one. Show people that their social and personal and cultural identity isn't dependant on adherence to a specific dogma, faith or religious belief.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,12:41   

ID is dead as a mackerel, and has no hope whatever of resurrection.  Not a chance.

The anti-evolution movement, though, is like cancer.  It will never go away.  Ever.

However, without the political support given to it by the Republicrat Party, the anti-evolution fundies are nothing but a sewing circle.  And within a few days, the Republicrats will get the most thorough thrashing they've ever received, and will be in no shape to give the fundies anything -- not even the lip service they've BEEN giving them.

So the way to kill the fundie movement, permanently, as an effective political movement, is simple ----- separate them from the Republicrat Party.  The anti-evolutioners then become as harmless (if kooky) as the geocentrists and the flat earthers are.

Of course, I, unlike PZ, do not see the very existence of religion itself as any sort of threat.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,14:38   

they're both right about the issues, and PZ is wrong about Pat's take.

PZ is focusing on the root, the creatio-fundieism that spawned ID to begin with, which is indeed not going to go away.

Pat is focusing specifically on the latest incarnation, which, like creation science, is rapidly being tossed to the loonie bin as a strategy.

I'm not sure why PZ missed that Pat was focusing strictly on ID, but both of their arguments are essentially correct when taken in context.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,17:29   

There are dangers in assuming that ID and its fundamental reaction against science (not Pat's position, btw, but one could mistake it as his (her?) position) are dead, but there are also dangers in thinking that an important weakening of this most recent incarnation of creationism has not occurred.  PZ is risking cynicism in not fully acknowledging the pathetic state to which ID proper has come.

The value of Dawkins' fairly singular approach is more than a little apparent now, I think.  UD expends a considerable amount of its remaining strength in fighting Dawkins' atheism, rather than even pretending to be doing or promoting science.  Whether one thinks that fundamentally Dawkins is right or wrong, he has done his part to smoke out the biases driving ID in its inception down to the present time.  IDists cannot help but react against the atheism that I think is mostly beside the point in science, because, of course, nothing in ID had anything to do with science when properly done.

What I am wondering is if ID might have put questions into the minds of a significant number of YECs.  No matter how badly IDists understood science, many at least did not deny the plain facts of geology, and several even noted that the evidence shows that evolution has happened.  It could be that ID has done some good after all, as it whimpers away into a lingering death (probably a living death, as some will no doubt cling to it until death, like many losers do).

Naturally it could only have a generally positive effect if it were to die, or to become completely marginalized.  I am hoping that for a while into the future, ID will poison the well for "critical evaluation", since such an admirable-seeming subterfuge might work much better than it has recently if "critical evaluation" were not the only "science" that ID ever attempted to engage in.  Possibly the living corpse of ID may be used to crush the anti-evolutionists' desires to nickel and dime evolution to death by using any "argument" (no matter how well it has been answered) they can throw at it.

Let us not forget that huge numbers of schoolchildren are taught little or nothing about evolution, thanks to the various sorts of anti-evolutionists.  I don't think that ID has had much to do with it, however the endless ignorance and reaction against science that bred ID continues to fester by blanking out biology's most important theory.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,18:02   

Quote
The value of Dawkins' fairly singular approach is more than a little apparent now, I think.  UD expends a considerable amount of its remaining strength in fighting Dawkins' atheism, rather than even pretending to be doing or promoting science.  Whether one thinks that fundamentally Dawkins is right or wrong, he has done his part to smoke out the biases driving ID in its inception down to the present time.  IDists cannot help but react against the atheism that I think is mostly beside the point in science, because, of course, nothing in ID had anything to do with science when properly done.


Hmm.  I think your conceptualization of Dawkins' latest effort makes sense, but do we really know if this was the intent and specific strategy?  

anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?

or is the result simply an expected and happy circumstance?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,20:32   

In the creationism debate, nothing ever really dies. We're still seeing the second law of thermodynamics gibberish. We're still reliving arguments from the 1840s.

Looking at it this way, ID can't die and will never really go away, just like young earth creationism and flood geology and "creation science" will never go away, even decades after they've become as discredited as they could possibly be.

However, while none of these things will ever die, they have each in their way become irrelevant.

And I do think ID has become irrelevant. Its time has been spent. The next threat from the creationist camp will be something different, and ID itself can be put out to pasture with flood geology and all the other creationist strategies that have been tried and failed. This doesn't make the creationism vs evolution struggle is over or even any less relevant. It just means the direction of that struggle will be changing.

The discovery institute, meanwhile, still has the potential to do some damage, I think.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,03:57   

All "intelligent design" ever was: a new label for good old fashioned creationism, after an attempt to throw the more obvious embarrassments and constitutional problems overboard.

"Intelligent design" - the most recent resurgence of anti-science - is now pretty well discredited; even Ken Blackwell, religious right candidate for Governor of Ohio, knows it's a bad move to associate with these guys. I think Wells, Johnson, Dembski, Behe and the Discovery Institute are finished. The next resurgence - and surely there will be one - might have to wait for a new label and a new generation of apologists.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,05:37   

YEC and OECism is fossilized. (ironically killed by I.D. sucking away the attention)

I.D. is dead.

"Teach the Controversy" is still alive.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:06   

Quote
Hmm.  I think your conceptualization of Dawkins' latest effort makes sense, but do we really know if this was the intent and specific strategy?  


I doubt it that it was his intent and specific strategy, at least with respect to the creationism wars themselves.  However, Dawkins may very be aware of specific strategies by some groups (notably, some environmental groups) to create outlier organizations which tend to legitimize the groups previously considered to be "radical".  He may himself be trying to be one of those outliers for atheism.

It's not for me to know his mind, though, and I tend to take him at face value (since it's easier)--that apparently he tries to use reason on those who do not use reason very well, especially where religion is concerned.  He knows the problem with that approach, but he seems not able to prevent himself from using tactics that do not directly work on most people.

But I value his approach as bait for the promoters of the "new science" of Paleyism, which was all that I meant in my earlier post.  I have never thought that most of us ought to be like Dawkins, or even that we should all be non-religious.  However, the ID-type of religionists will label all of us as intolerant materialists without the slightest bit of evidence, which is why it is so welcome to me to have someone around who positions himself as being fairly intolerant of religion, like Dawkins (for instance, I could not imagine the government stepping in between parents and children in the matter of religion as Dawkins suggests).  It becomes all the harder to project the lie that we're simply trying to destroy religion when we act so differently from the one who (apparently, at least) really is out to destroy religion, rather than to try to moderate religion via reason and science as I would like to do.

I've always thought it was counter-productive for the rest of us to try to inhibit PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dennett, since if we succeeded in shutting them up the only non-theists to paint as intolerant of religion would be us.  And however absurd that accusation is, in the absence of any well-known militant atheists such a claim would be plausible enough to many naive individuals.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:39   

Quote
Anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?


I think it was to attract more agnostic/liberal believer butterflies to the atheist nectar, and away from the flame. ;)

--------------
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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,13:03   

In one sense, Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.

In an intellectual sense, I think ID is dead because the scientists were able to show progress in explaining "irreducible" systems, and one of the creators of the "No-Free-Lunch Theorem" publicly ridiculed Dembski's maths. It's the same type of problem the YEC folks have: the last few decades have been a boon for evolution. Look at the all the neat transitional fossils that have been found, and the discovery of pseudogenes, SINE and LINE insertions that have clarified many ancestral lines. The tipping point will come when people realise how useful macroevolutionary ideas are in technical research. People listen to results.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,14:05   

Quote
In one sense, Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.


but will the need to think that the universe personally cares for one fade?

I think so.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,15:28   

Quote
Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.
My instinct would be to sugggest to people that feel that way that they grow up.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,17:05   

Quote (Fross @ Nov. 01 2006,11:37)
"Teach the Controversy" is still alive.

No, that's dead too.  It died in Ohio.


So did "teach the controversies about global warming, and . . . uh . . . stem cell research . . . um . .  and oh yeah, evolution".


My hunch is that they will give up on evolution completely, and launch into some anti-big-bang thingie instead.  Shades of Heddle's "comsological ID".


But as I've noted before, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, it doesn't matter WHAT the fundies say -- they become just another harmless bunch of nutters that nobody pays any attention to.  Like the geocentrists or the flying saucer/alien abduction  kooks.

And very soon, the Republicrat Party will not be in any position to help the fundies with anything.

If ever there was a chance to separate the fundies from the Republicrat Party, now is the time. . . . .

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

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,18:07   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 01 2006,17:39)
Quote
Anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?


I think it was to attract more agnostic/liberal believer butterflies to the atheist nectar, and away from the flame. ;)

Um, really? Because personally, the more I hear people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers go nuts obsessing over the whole religion thing, the more convinced I become to describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist in public. Even though I don't see much meaningful difference between the two words.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,18:37   

Can I ask a simple question and get a simple
answer?

Based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that God is dead or that there never
was one?  50/50, 10 to one,
100 to 1, 1000 to one, million to one?

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,19:11   

Quote
I've always thought it was counter-productive for the rest of us to try to inhibit PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dennett, since if we succeeded in shutting them up the only non-theists to paint as intolerant of religion would be us.  And however absurd that accusation is, in the absence of any well-known militant atheists such a claim would be plausible enough to many naive individuals.


over the last few months, I've come to essentially the same conclusion.  Extremists, agree or not with their individual positions, do tend to move the discussion forward at least, and do tend to absorb the brunt of opposition.

in fact, one could make a good argument that extremists on both sides are moving this along to a resolution faster than if they weren't around.

I'm pretty sure the end result will be something I can live with (hopefully not just a projection of rationalism), so speeding it along can only be a good thing.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,19:20   

I believe that misunderstandings cannot be killed except by the individual who holds the belief (How many pages of AFDave would you like to prove this point?) which means that ID and creationism can’t be called dead until we get kids who have only had a basic K-12 public education able to point out why the supernatural is considered out-of-bounds of scientific testing.

Yes, ID is now intellectually pathetic and cloistered, but it always was. I think it’s the post-Dover “Here’s a 135 page smack down from a conservative religious judge” euphoria that makes their idiocy seem more harmless, but we have to remember why they were a culture threat: emotional arguments supporting what a large number of people already believed in, a veneer of scientific authority, low entry qualifications, and a well-funded PR group. Those factors remain (even the veneer of scientific authority as the oblivious denizens of UD have shown) which leads me to believe that ID remains culturally viable. And since it's based on God-in-the-gaps and impossible-to-calculate probability estimates (which I believe to be two of the most seemingly plausible and easy-to-grasp creationist arguments for non-scientists), I also don't see it being irrelevant until those fallacies are obvious to the majority of the population.

So basically, they’ll have to change their legal angle (probably a more bottom-up than top-down method of getting it into schools like student evangelizing), but they’re pitifully unable to come up with new ideas or let old ones die, and this one seems profitable, so we’ll see ID pop up again.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,23:06   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 01 2006,23:05)

My hunch is that they will give up on evolution completely, and launch into some anti-big-bang thingie instead.  Shades of Heddle's "comsological ID".


I'm not so sure? The big bang doesn't upset the religious as much, as it still seems kind of magical.
It's evolution that gets people mad enough to rush into schools waving bricks shouting "do I look like a monkey?".

As cdesign points out, that's the real problem. As long as that culture exists, there's the opportunity for money and power. My guess - same old arguments in a shiny new suit. Tailoring by the DI? (after all it's been pretty lucrative so far hasn't it?)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,03:21   

Quote
Based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that God is dead or that there never
was one?  50/50, 10 to one,
100 to 1, 1000 to one, million to one?

Why would you assume that, to the extent one might consider the existence of the supernatural, one would focus exclusively on a singular entity?  Or that one would describe the entity or entities using the proper noun "God" that gives away that you're unable to consider anything but the assumed existence of the one entity you are obsessed with?  How could a god or gods, had it/they once existed, now be dead?  What or who would kill a god?  Since there is no empirical evidence for a god or gods ever having existed, what could constitute evidence of their death?

Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer.

One.

Zero, based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that Osiris is dead or never was?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,03:59   

Toothbrush:

"Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer.

One."

You were sorta vague. Are you betting that
there is, or is not an Intelligent Designer?

Gatta go.  I'm goin' fishin'.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,04:13   

Nothing vague about it.  Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc.

How about my question?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,04:38   

Quote
Um, really? Because personally, the more I hear people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers go nuts obsessing over the whole religion thing, the more convinced I become to describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist in public.


Perhaps atheism, like evolution, works through populations, mcc! Individual preferences will vary; and they will change as the Dawkins/Dennett brouhaha continue to percolate through the culture. Let's wait and see. You might change your mind.

Evolution literacy works through populations, too. One can apply the metaphor of Dawkins' gene-level arms' race to this whole evolution vs. creationism fight. They are competing strategies, but creationism doesn't lead to survival; its believers are waiting for a Rapture that won't happen. Sooner or later they'll have to figure out how to live on this planet, and guess who already has answers about that?

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,05:36   

Quote

and one of the creators of the "No-Free-Lunch Theorem" publicly ridiculed Dembski's maths.


I had a running correspondence with David Wolpert, starting with a request for him to look over Dembski's "Can Evolutionary Algorithms Generate Specified Complexity?" (IIRC), which was an early place where Dembski invoked NFL theorems. Wolpert sent me back a scathing assessment of Dembski's foray into NFL theorems. Later, I suggested to Wolpert that it would be useful if he reviewed Dembski's "No Free Lunch". That review, of course, got published in a pretty high-profile spot.

<made in canada>I think that went well.</made in canada>

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,08:31   

Russell:
   
Quote
My instinct would be to sugggest to people that feel that way that they grow up.


I understand what you're saying, but that may not be enough. Here's a guy who articulates the religious conservative viewpoint against evolutionary biology pretty well:

   
Quote
I think it is also worth noting that many atheists and agnostics are constantly reassuring religious believers that evolution doesn’t threaten our religious beliefs. “Have no fear,” they say, “evolution doesn’t contradict any religion at all; you can accept evolution and still be an orthodox Christian. The only thing science disproves is a literal six-day creation; other than that, there’s absolutely no conflict whatsoever. Move along, nothing to see here.” An example of Derbyshire doing this can be found toward the end of this article. Yet now, in the article you linked to, he is pretty much stating baldly that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with orthodox Christianity, and that accepting the former necessitates rejecting the latter.

I’ve always doubted that those unbelievers are sincere when they reassure religious believers, since when they talk among themselves, it’s very common to hear evolution given as one of the primary reasons they don’t believe in God. It brings to mind how Yassir Arafat was known to say conciliatory things to the Western world in English, then turn around and say the complete opposite to his own people in Arabic. I think most people who reassure religious believers that evolution doesn’t threaten them are really just hoping that if they can get people to accept evolution first, their conservative religious beliefs will topple later, paving the way to acceptance of liberal social goals like same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand. Of course, this doesn’t explain Derbyshire, who is not particularly invested in such goals. I think Derbyshire is just such a pessimist that he gains some kind of perverse schadenfreude out of the prospect of people admitting, against everything they formerly believed, that there’s no meaning or purpose in life. [my emp]


You may think this guy is blowing this out of proportion, but let's be honest: at least some of you think this way. Many lefty evo supporters really do use biology as a Trojan Horse for anti-conservative doctrines, and that's why conservatives like me have to be more vocal in defense of science. You can accept science and still embrace traditional morality.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,08:43   

Quote
...and that's why conservatives like me have to be more vocal in defense of science...


You seriously have to be shitting me. You're not a defender of science, you're a message board troll.

Geocentrism?
"Fine tuning"?
Guts to gametes?

Science these things are not. Nobody's buying this latest act GoP.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,10:52   

Louis, don't you cause enough trouble at home?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,14:29   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 02 2006,10:13)
Nothing vague about it.  Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc.

How about my question?


I know what .5 is and I know what .ooooo1 is.

I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.  What are the probabilities

there is a designer?  Could there be a

createor?  I believe, if ID is dead, God is

dead, but what I believe doesn't matter.

I can only deal with  one question at a time.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
  58 replies since Oct. 31 2006,10:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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