avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Russell,
| Quote | | But that's the problem with Behe's thesis. It rests on there being no way for these systems to have come about naturally. So what kind of research program has any IDer proposed to figure out a mechanism by which something happened supernaturally? |
Yes, this is a real problem. It reminds me of some things Miller said at the end of his paper. I have tremendous faith in...Reality, though. The Designer is not a cheater, not a hider, and won't ruin the fun.
| Quote | | Also, I find it telling that you seem uninterested in the abundant evidence presented that progress is being made - plausible, researchable evolutionary hypotheses are being offered - toward each and every system Behe has held up as "irreducibly complex". |
SFAIK, that is mostly overblown. We'll see.
I even paid $5 more for a used copy of the more recent paperback when I could've gotten a new hardback from 1998, just in case their was some new dope.
| Quote | | Re: Denton Then vs. Denton Now. All of your dancing around the issue fails to change the stark fact. His first book - widely cited as inspiration by IDists Johnson, Behe, and others - was all about evidence against common descent. There is nothing left of that argument that he has not tacitly admitted to be refuted. You'll notice he is no longer among the Discovery Institute's "Fellows". I think that, in their creepily Soviet style of information management,they have largely purged the record of their falling out with him. |
I guess I am just not convinced and you don't seem to have read or understood my post. The arguments he made were against Darwinist gradualism because there seems to be arguments that sway such minds as mine and his. It does not really speak to how the life forms did get here, and I really never envisioned the kind of special creation that involves each species being made in God's laboratory and carefully kept alive in an intensive care unit until safely transported out of God's mobile lab (I think he would need a mobile lab so he could go to each continent). I always thought that the genes were modified wholesale from living creatures in some way. It may very well be that a fundamentalist like Johnson has a different hope in mind when they read a Denton-type book, so he might have gotten disappointed. As to others, we all have tons of left over baggage from Biblical and Christian worldview. I think Denton's thought has progressed nicely and I would really like to find out what he has to say himself (I did a search but I'm crappy at it) about how his thinking has altered. But anyway, he now thinks life unfolded according to laws, and why not, and he thinks in terms of an entire universe of laws that support life. With this I am in total agreement.
I had no idea that he used to be a fellow and isn't anymore and I would like to find out more about that. But I would like to know where he admits that all his arguments have been refuted. Perhaps I'll see if he can be contacted.
| Quote | | Post-modernist anti-intellectualism. Somehow the mere posing of an alternate point of view makes both views equally valid, so you can never know anything, just have opinions. I reject that completely. |
So do I. Down with postmodernism!
| Quote | | Well, no. "if I'm right, then one day I'll be proved right" doesn't really count as a prediction, in the scientific sense. |
C'mon, now. What I said was that I believe based on the nonsense I've been reading that there are limits to genetic change in a species, and that as we are delving deeper into genetics and evo devo, we'll find those locked gates. And I wait faithfully to be vindicated. Leaving the work to others, of course.
Henry,
The movie is The Priveleged Planet, I think. I thought you were referring to it re our position in the cosmos (they say we've got a great view).
Grego,
| Quote | | If there is a God, and he/she has the power to create a universe, and yet he/she chooses to make the evidence of his/her abilities so vague that it is, for all intents and purposes, unrecognisable ... well ... why? |
It has to do with perception. In a way, I'm the ultimate evolutionist. From my viewpoint, people generally have childish, which is to say simple, unexamined and rather cartoonish notions of God and self. The ideas lack depth and therefore are of little worth to the problem of how to live. God is what God is and it is the human being who must grow in awareness, not demand that God enter our world as a "toon." I think that the whole purpose of existence is evolution, not merely of life forms, but of consciousness, awareness, understanding. You say God is hiding, but I see God in everything. But I wasn't always like this - it took years of deep, penetrating logical thought.
| Quote | | Taking it one step further, if this God controlled evolution, and Homo sapiens as it exists today was the intended end point of this process, would you then suggest that this God cared about us?If so, then I would conclude that either this God is powerless to do anything about the multitude of atrocities that occur every day on this planet, or that he/she is actively refraining from doing anything about them. |
You see, such questions are petulant. They blame God when it is we ourselves who cause the majority of the misery. It elevates God to some distant, imaginary parental figure. It would do no good for God to interfere and MAKE us be good, or blow his whistle like a teacher on the playground - stopping the meanies before they hurt anyone.
This would be an eternity of policework of primitive and undeveloped beings - us. Instead, we will evolve until by learning from our mistakes we have finally internalized the good and have a true conscience.
God is wild, far from tame, but never uses force. He will not force us to be good.
| Quote | | I'd suggest that maybe this God wasn't really worthy of the respect some people show him/her. |
Yeah, that's why I preach too much. I'm kinda tired of the way God gets slandered by (some) religion and made into a petty and egotistical tyrant. It's all lies.
Henry,
| Quote | | Near as I can tell, usng just the basic notion that life was in some way deliberately engineered, I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the conclusions of the current theory |
I'm thinking that is pretty much right. But as to the current theory, if things were deliberately engineered then we would rely a little less on random oportunism and seek out more the underlying laws or processes that brought that engineering to fruition.
CJ,
| Quote | | Think this through carefully. Can there be evidence for something, if, in principle, there can be none against? |
But you slightly altered the topic. I wasn't arguing for the existence of God, I said that if there is one, there should be clues lying around.
Stephen,
| Quote | | Science should always try to find out how "the world works". |
Of course. God isn't separate from the world, though.
Improvius,
| Quote | | If ID isn't religious in nature, why do these discussions invariably delve into ontology?. |
It's all my fault and I admit it.
Puck,
| Quote | | ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created. |
Eh? What's that about?
| Quote | | It is a completely different thing to say.."I dont think that your idea works...I have no proof...it just doesnt sound feasible." |
Yes, I do need to get to that. Right now, I'm worried about my hero, Denton. I was planning on submitting his name to the queen for knighthood.
| Quote | | If God interferes all the time...then empirical science is completely unreliable. |
I sympathize and it cannot work that way -- at the same time remember Grego's post above and he is mad that God doesn't interfere?
| Quote | | Unfortunately...in the last couple of centuries...we havent really seen God interfere...maybe he is on vacation? |
I hope Jehovah is on a permanent vacation. I'm convinced he's an imposter. I think he was some kind of channeled guy.
| Quote | | Basically you're a pantheist? If this is the case...have you ever studied hinduism? It supposedly is more spirtually fulfilling than Christianity, and it has your favorite flavors....only bad news is that the Earth is very, very, very old. |
Basically, I'm a religion of one. I thought I was a pantheist for a while, until someone informed me I was a panentheist.(God is immanent and transcendent) I struggle between the two...Someone used the word monist on a forum and I looked it up and sure enough, that's me. So, yeah, I've looked into Advaita, which is the real heart of Hinduism. I have tremendous respect for Hinduism, but I don't know why you think the age of the earth is a problem. They like to throw around really big numbers. 15 billion years is just one breath of Brahma. And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.
| Quote | | Did you notice something...you said that Faith leads to knowledge. If I learn something only after believing in it, then am I not forcing myself to know something? Isnt it entirely more likely that I have tricked myself into believing something if I must have faith in it first? |
I'm afraid I didn't follow this. Ah, you mistrust faith - very good. Emotions are highly suspect and we should rid ourselves of most of them. Everything you say makes perfect sense from your perspective.
Of course your rationalism doesn't offend me, and I am surprised you say you believe without faith. But then, you never answered my querry about your logical proofs of God.
Your summaton stinks. Hope you weren't too serious.
| Quote | | Actually...it would destroy faith. If we "know" God exists...then we do not have "faith" in God. |
And a glorious destruction it would be. Think of how the word faith and trust overlap, even being used interchangeably in Russian. If you have faith in your buddy in a dangerous situation it's because you know you can count on him because you've observed his character before. I don't mean book knowledge, theoretical knowledge - I'm talking about the personal. Faith is an intuition of God based on the truth within, which is where such things are sensed.
|
, these days the news of a successful vaccine candidate is much more newsworthy than news of an unsuccessful one. 
