Joined: Oct. 2005
ET June 21, 2019 at 7:37 am
Wow, all I said was that ID does not require God nor the belief in God.
Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn’t require a belief in God.”
Let’s take a look-in “The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
REQUIRES is the operative word. ID is NOT falsified by a personal God. ID is NOT falsified by the existence of salvation.
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn’t even require there be a God.
So I am not sure what set off bornagain77 as there wasn’t anything bizarre with what I posted. It all comes from the ID leaders.
Hazel June 21, 2019 at 7:58 am
ba is not interested in ID. He is interested in proselytizing for Christianity. Suggesting that ID might not require Christianity set him off.
Bornagain77 June 21, 2019 at 9:10 am
Well sure, there is no mandate to follow the evidence where it leads in science. People who are interested in finding the truth find it desirable to do so though.
But as I said, “regardless of what some may prefer to believe beforehand, empirical science has a way of breaking through any artificial limits we try to artificially place on it beforehand.”
And as I laid out, via empirical evidence from our most powerful theories in science, science now leads us to a direct implication for a personal God, and even when including the recent closing of the free will loop-hole in quantum mechanics, and when the Agent Causality of God is rightly let BACK into physics (as originally envisioned by the Christian founders of modern science), then that leads to a direct implication for Christianity.
I note that neither ET nor Hazel challenged the evidence. ET quoted Gonzalez, as if personal opinion can out weigh empirical evidence in science, and Hazel, predictably, disparagingly attacked my laying out the evidence for a personal God as “proselytizing for Christianity.”
Well call it what you will. The scientific evidence is what it is. To disparage my motives instead of addressing the scientific evidence that I laid out does nothing to overturn the evidence that I laid out. Good luck overturning it. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are confirmed to almost absurd levels of precision.
Again, the evidence is what it is, whether you personally like it or not, and it leads to a direct inference for a personal God who created us. Even, (when including evidence for our unique ability to create information) leading us to a direct inference for God creating us in His image. (i.e. “Kingdom of Speech”; T. Wolfe).
If you don’t like the direct inferences that are to be drawn from these powerful lines of evidence, for what ever ill conceived personal reason you may have, at least have the honesty to forthrightly address the scientific evidence I’ve presented instead of arguing from authority and/or attacking my personal motives as Hazel has done,,, (as if Hazel has no personal motives that can’t be attacked if I so chose to do so)
ET June 21, 2019 at 9:17 am
Oh my. What Gonzalez said has NOTHING to do with the evidence and EVERYTHING to do with ID in general.
What Dembski said has NOTHING to do with any evidence and EVERYTHING to do with ID in general.
Personal God? Then why doesn’t God just re-create Eden for us? I will tell you why- because we messed it all up.
Bornagain77 June 21, 2019 at 9:21 am
So you are claiming that Dembski and Gonzalez are against ID advocates following the evidence where it leads? 🙂
ET June 21, 2019 at 9:36 am
LoL! I never said, implied nor ever thought such a thing
Asauber June 21, 2019 at 11:39 am
Maybe I can help by asking some questions:
What kind of mental framework has to be in place prior to a person professing to believe there is no God?
Is denial of design in nature something that occurs before that conclusion is made or afterwards?
What is the logical progression of these ideas?
I just can't keep up with all this Science!