Hitchens, Dembski Debate God

51
Posted November 21, 2010 by Jimmy Fowler in Blotch
DESPITE HIS RUN-IN WITH CANCER, HITCHENS STUCK TO HIS ATHEIST GUNS IN PLANO LAST WEEK.

DESPITE HIS RUN-IN WITH CANCER, HITCHENS STUCK TO HIS ATHEIST GUNS IN PLANO LAST WEEK.

Although it wasn’t widely publicized, celebrated atheist pundit Christopher Hitchens came to North Texas last week to debate the existence of God. His opponent in the public event at Plano’s Prestonwood Christian Academy was Dr. William Dembski, a professor from Fort Worth’s Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a famous proponent of the “intelligent design” theory. The Academy has posted video of the debate online.

Hitchens is currently undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer, but his ability to render the famous “Hitch slap” appears undiminished. Personally, though, I don’t think it’s a fair fight. Dembski’s a right wing demagogue who has declared that the “intelligent designer” behind the universe is definitely “the Christian God,” and that this can be proven empirically. I’m a believer, but this is not only absurd, it’s missing the point of faith. I think Hitchens would more than meet his equal in the brilliant Katharine Jefforts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. But she’s probably too busy running a denomination to look for God’s fingerprints under a microscope or tussle with a hard-drinking British media hound.

In the end, though, even a Schori vs. Hitchens smackdown would probably be a big fat waste of time. As someone once said – how can two opponents debate when they’re not even speaking the same language?


51 Comments


  1.  
    Andy Platt

    Jimmy,

    Check out Ravi Zacharias. He turns people around all the time on the theism v. atheism debate.




  2.  

    It should be made clear that intelligent design creationism is NOT a “theory” in any scientific sense.

    The National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and essentially every other actual science organization in America all agree that intelligent design creationism is not science at all, but a religion-based pseudoscience. Intelligent design creationism is a false “sciencey-sounding” construct that its proponents cannot prove by any of the rules of science, so they make appearances at church conferences and in church publications instead of at science conferences and in science publications.

    Read Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to see what these religious fanatics are really up to. It’s not science by any stretch.




  3.  
    Tim

    Christopher Hitchens is an American citizen who was born in another country, just like Henry Kissinger, Thomas Paine, Bob Hope or Andrew Carnegie. Given his love of freedom of expression and his championing of democracy, he is more American than many people born in the US. Why do you even state (wrongly) that he is British? Is this to stir up xenophobia?




  4.  
    David

    @Andy; Actually, I listened to Ravi Zacharias for many years when I was a fundamentalist Christian, and one day, I was listening to a tape of his, when I realized that he was avoiding the question given. He was telling a pretty story, but it was utterly invalid. This began my long road out of Christianity, as I began to realize the illogic, and depravity of Christian theology.




  5.  

    Um, I don’t think Dembski has ever said that his design inference can, with certainty, lead to the Christian God. Please provide your citation there. Those in the ID field don’t tend to make that proclamation. In fact all you needed to do was go to wikipedia to see that your assertion is false.

    To the guy that says ID isn’t science, Mr. Burnett, could you please tell us why it isn’t? First off, your ignorance about ID is apparent when you call it “Intelligent Design Creationism,” which seems to equate it with the 6 day creation view. While many in the ID movement may be 6 day creationists, that doesn’t mean they all are. Many are old earthers, many hold to theistic evolution, some hold to common descent even. How about we get an argument, other than an appeal to authority, that ID doesn’t qualify as science. If science is observing and testing the world and then coming to a reasonable conclusion, then it seems ID would meet that criteria.

    Also, I find it telling that you don’t mention Dr. Dembski’s credentials, which includes a doctorate in Mathematics from the University of Chicago. He has almost single handedly formulated a scientific way to detect design in different systems. He’s a smart guy, and honestly, if there wasn’t the disgusting bias against those who would dare to express interest in design in biological systems, he’d be in a major university.

    Hitchens on the other hand is a joke. He is skilled at impressive rhetoric, but is without substance in any of his arguments.




  6.  

    “He was telling a pretty story….” Sounds like the creation myth popularized by Charles Darwin and his antagonist Huxley. Spontaneous generation never sounded so good. Hey adaptation can has been shown to produce some change, but there has never been a documented example of a new genus forming or even roughly resembling one. Much less any of the other higher taxa being formed.

    Genetic information without intelligent input is bunk. Simple as that.

    Wayne




  7.  
    Art

    @Paul : Looking at some of the articles and publications coming out of the string theorist and M theorist not sure how that can be seen as science at times. It all comes down to the Big Bang: how does everything come out of nothing(ex nihilo). Why is there something rather than nothing?




  8.  
    Jason

    @bossmanham – It’s not science because it does not follow scientific principles. Like science, it starts with an observation. However, it does not gain data, run experiments, test the hypothesis to check whether it’s wrong–indeed, intelligent design creationism has no criteria for falsifiability, which makes it completely unscientific on that merit alone–it does not refine or rebuke its stances when presented with contrary evidence, and tends not to consider contrary evidence. ID is, at best, a theological or philosophical viewpoint. Until it can run scientific studies that demonstrate their claims and get published in scientific journals, it will never, ever be science. It’s not an argument from authority, it’s a rejection of a misnomer. All we ask on this issue is honesty.

    @Art – Go to Youtube and watch Dr. Lawrence Krauss’ lecture entitled “A Universe From Nothing.” If you’re serious about wanting to know, you’ll get your answers there. It’s an hour or so long, so be sure to set aside enough time to watch it.




  9.  

    Jason, it’s clear you’ve read not-a one piece of ID material. What you say is patently wrong. The design inference itself developed by Dembski lays out certain criteria that would falsify his conclusion that biological life is designed. Stephen Meyer, in his book the Signature in the Cell, cites at least 15 experiments he examined to come to his inference to the best explanation that life requires design. You’ve done nothing but troll the internet searching for silly neo-Darwinist critiques of ID. All of these contentions have been debunked numerous times.

    ID is an inference to the best explanation, which is clearly scientific since it is used in archaeology, criminal investigatory science, psychology, etc all the time. Yet for some reason in biology it’s forbidden. Why? It’s not because there’s evidence that all life came from a random, purposeless, and mindless process, but because you assume some sort of naturalism in it. If you do it there, then you need to remain consistent and conclude that you can’t infer design in anything.




  10.  
    DuckPhup

    bossmanham wrote: “Um, I don’t think Dembski has ever said that his design inference can, with certainty, lead to the Christian God. Please provide your citation there.”

    He has indeed said that… and on MORE than one occasion. Citation below.

    bossmanham wrote: “Those in the ID field don’t tend to make that proclamation. In fact all you needed to do was go to wikipedia to see that your assertion is false.”

    Actually… all you need to do is go to Wikipedia, to will see that the assertion is TRUE…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

    In his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”[85] Dembski also stated, “ID is part of God’s general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ”.[86] Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible’s Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[26][n 19]

    William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God”. Devon Williams (December 14, 2007). “CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski”. Focus on the Family. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    bossmanham wrote: “To the guy that says ID isn’t science, Mr. Burnett, could you please tell us why it isn’t?”

    First and foremost… because the guys that invented ‘Intelligent Design’ SAID SO. ID is NOT science… it is a political strategy… a red herring… a ‘Trojan Horse’. ALL the claims of Intelligent Design are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Intelligent Design was NOT invented to serve as a scientific theory… it was invented specifically as a political strategy, whose purpose is to bamboozle and mislead scientifically-ignorant legislators, educators, school boards, and the gullible and scientifically-ignorant Christ-cult constituency. The STATED INTENT of this strategy is to undermine scientific education, and sabotage science itself.

    The core element of their ‘wedge strategy’ is to “Teach the controversy.” That means that they tell the grand LIE that the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is a ‘theory in crisis’ within the scientific community… KNOWING that their ‘stupidified’ and scientifically ignorant Christ-cult constituency will BELIEVE them… even though THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY within the scientific community.

    A secondary purpose of the Intelligent Design SCAM is to provide a means to unite ‘young earth creationists’, day-age creationists, old earth creations, and all the variations and flavors in-between, under a common banner… ‘created’… and win THAT battle. Once success is achieved (USA transformed into a theocracy?)… THEN they can quibble among themselves with respect to the age of the earth, and whether everything was ‘POOFED’ into existence over 6-days, 6,000 years ago, or whether the ‘poofing’ took somewhat longer.

    The inventors of Intelligent certainly don’t believe their own claims; they don’t need to. The strategy works because its proponents can lie with impunity, justifiably confident that it will never even occur to their stupid, gullible, credulous and ignorant God-bot audience that they might actually be being lied to.

    Look up ‘wedge strategy’ (the conceptual blueprint for Intelligent design) and “creationism’s trojan horse”.
    Whenever the subject of Intelligent design arises, it should NEVER be argued on its (bogus) scientific merits (or lack thereof). Instead, it’s background and history should be reviewed… citations provided… and then dismissed, with derision, and its defenders should be scathingly ridiculed for being sucked-in by the scam. The liars who are BEHING this execrable, insidious scam… Dumbsky… Johnson… Behe and the rest of that lot… should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

    bossmanham wrote: “First off, your ignorance about ID is apparent when you call it “Intelligent Design Creationism,” which seems to equate it with the 6 day creation view.”

    ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is what it SHOULD be called… because ALL variations of ID involve a ‘creator’ (renamed as ‘designer’).

    bossmanham wrote: “While many in the ID movement may be 6 day creationists, that doesn’t mean they all are. Many are old earthers, many hold to theistic evolution, some hold to common descent even.”

    Again… ALL involve a ‘creator’; hence, ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’.

    bossmanham wrote: “How about we get an argument, other than an appeal to authority, that ID doesn’t qualify as science. If science is observing and testing the world and then coming to a reasonable conclusion, then it seems ID would meet that criteria.”

    Pkease provide citations in peer-reviewed scientific publications that substantiate your assertion that Intelligent Design involves “…observing and testing the world and then coming to a reasonable conclusion.”

    Ohhh… right… you CAN’T… because there AREN’T ANY.

    Never mind.

    By the way… I think it was Dumbsky who said that the biggest problem for Intelligent Design movement is that they HAVEN’T DONE any ‘science’. Either him or Behe… maybe both.

    bossmanham wrote: “Also, I find it telling that you don’t mention Dr. Dembski’s credentials, which includes a doctorate in Mathematics from the University of Chicago.”

    Actually, he’s a professional LFJ™ (Liar For Jesus) FIRST… scientist and mathematician SECOND.

    bossmanham wrote: “He has almost single handedly formulated a scientific way to detect design in different systems. He’s a smart guy, and honestly, if there wasn’t the disgusting bias against those who would dare to express interest in design in biological systems, he’d be in a major university.”

    His ‘scientific way to detect design’ is entirely bogus. He is a scam artist. You are among his victims.

    bossmanham wrote: “Hitchens on the other hand is a joke. He is skilled at impressive rhetoric, but is without substance in any of his arguments.”

    Oh… so… you’ve never read Hitchens, or heard him speak, huh? That’s the only way you could have come up with such an absurd statement




  11.  
    graeme

    “Just like any other relationship, building intimacy with God requires vulnerability. Honesty. Time. Prayer. Focus. Listening. Journaling. Reading the Bible. Meditating.”

    Building intimacy with God requires God to exist and only the vunerable will believe.

    Honesty will lead you away from imaginary beings, only continuing the lie leads you to spending your valuable time on this earth praying to an imaginary being focusing on going to some unknown heaven instead of enjoying the tiny planet we already have.

    Listening to those who want to use your belief in invisible beings to fleece your pockets, journaling your invented spiritual experiences to confirm to yourself you really had one.
    Reading a collection of 2000 year old short stories to validate the belief that you’re more than just human and will live on after death, meditating on how you have it right and the rest of the world that doesnt believe in your God must have it wrong.
    Because you’re so smart you wouldnt pray to a fake God….




  12.  
    graeme

    When we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each other, swallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed and outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen people of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters.
    Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor,

    Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most incredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that repository of the impossible, called the Bible. To me it is a matter of amazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent human being. Come on, even you can not be silly enough to belive that, can you?

    A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express purpose of fitting it. Alter a while the man gets tired of lying, and then the last lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is an opportunity to use a miracle. Just at that point, it is necessary to have a little inspiration.




  13.  
    graeme

    During many ages there were witches.The Bible commanded they should Die.Therefore the Church gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its HOLY work in earnest. She worked hard during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

    Then they discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and NEVER had been.

    The Bible is nothing more than an assortment of ancient, mythological, astrological, metaphorical desert writings. There is nothing factual about that book, and it certainly doesn’t represent any part of history.
    Anyone who believes that the Bible is a history book is someone who has never studied the matter and is most likely a delusional, wish-thinking fool.

    You can employ the Bible as your guide to life if you will, (although to consider it a science/math text is streching it somewhat) I would just recommend not limiting yourself to a single book as your source of enlightenment. How some some people can go through life with only 1 book absorbed in their life frightens me. Little in this world is more alarming to me than the idea of someone being ignorant by intention.




  14.  
    graeme

    A side benefit, incidentally, of freeing myself from religious indoctrination was the unexpected pleasure of finding my mind to be a private place. I had not realised until then, how much I resented the intrusion of a heavenly ‘peeping Tom’. A permanent farther/dictator who never goes away, who you are ordered to Love and Fear. What a Horrible concept to impose on yourselves and your Children.

    I’m not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I’ve seen what it can do to skyscrapers.




  15.  

    DuckPhup,

    Strange, I asked for a citation that had Dembski say that intelligent design invariably leads to the Christian God, and you cite him affirming His Christian beliefs on a philosophical level, which definitely isn’t what I asked for. He thinks that a consistent worldview requires belief in Christ, but he DOES NOT think that ID alone necessarily leads to the Christian God, as he says when asked who the designer would be to the San Francisco Chronicle, “It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities.” And what would it matter if he did think that ID necessarily led to the Christian God? How would that make ID any less science? The big bang theory seems to lead to God. Is it science?

    As a Christian, it’s pretty much a DUH that he thinks God is the designer of life and the cosmos, but that doesn’t say anything about what ID will show. You have presented quotes that don’t address the issue at hand.

    You say: “First and foremost… because the guys that invented ‘Intelligent Design’ SAID SO. ID is NOT science… it is a political strategy… a red herring… a ‘Trojan Horse’. ALL the claims of Intelligent Design are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Intelligent Design was NOT invented to serve as a scientific theory… it was invented specifically as a political strategy, whose purpose is to bamboozle and mislead scientifically-ignorant legislators, educators, school boards, and the gullible and scientifically-ignorant Christ-cult constituency. The STATED INTENT of this strategy is to undermine scientific education, and sabotage science itself.”

    Well this is an awful long assertion full of some less than impressive rhetorical pomp, but where’s the basis for it? Give me an argument beyond “ID IS STEWPID AND I HATE IT AND PEOPLE THAT THINK IT BELIEVE IN GOD.” Not to mention that that line of reasoning is fallacious; see genetic fallacy. EVEN IF they developed the theory to undermine education and for political reasons (which you have yet to argue for), it says nothing about whether the theory is true or not.

    And yes, the purpose of ID is to challenge neo-Darwinism; because neo-Darwinism philosophical and evidential underpinnings are woefully inept. There’s no reason to believe the neo-Darwinist line.

    You accuse them of lying, but I see no evidence or argument. This is called ad hominem.

    Pkease provide citations in peer-reviewed scientific publications that substantiate your assertion that Intelligent Design involves “…observing and testing the world and then coming to a reasonable conclusion.”

    *Pkease*? What does peer review have to do with whether something is scientific? Proper experimentation, logic, and repeated observation are the foundation of science. All scientific articles are, at one point, not peer reviewed. Peer review examines the viability of a scientific argument, but it doesn’t mean the article isn’t scientific. Here is a list of peer reviewed ID articles.

    Ohhh… right… you CAN’T… because there AREN’T ANY

    Wow, bet you feel dumb now.




  16.  

    Apparently html tags don’t work here.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    That’s the link to the list of ID peer reviewed articles.




  17.  

    “bossmanham” wrote: “Um, I don’t think Dembski has ever said that his design inference can, with certainty, lead to the Christian God. Please provide your citation there.”

    There are numerous citations for this – here’s one: “Dembski, in an interview with Focus on the Family: Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer? Dembski: I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.” – http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/14/dog-bites-man-dembski-says-designer-is-god/

    Dembski also wrote: “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” – from his book, Intelligent Design, page 207. More quotes from Dembski’s book: “[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.” and “[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.” Does this sound like the debate is about science or religion?

    “bossmanham” continued: “Those in the ID field don’t tend to make that proclamation.”

    Well, of course they don’t…at least in public. It’s only when they are talking with other right-wing fundagelicals that they freely admit that the “intelligent designer” is the Creator God of Genesis. You don’t understand how propaganda works, do you?

    “bossmanham” continued: “…your ignorance about ID is apparent when you call it “Intelligent Design Creationism,”

    That’s because that’s what it is. You didn’t read Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, did you? Read it – it’s fascinating what these religious fanatics are really up to.

    “bossmanham,” do you deny that intelligent design creationism Founder’s Conferences were held at religious (never scientific) venues such as Southern Methodist University in 1992 and the Bible Institute Of Los Angeles (now BIOLA University) in 1996? These are historical facts.

    Do you deny that the first sentence of the infamous Wedge Document is “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”? Does that sound like this debate is about science or religion?

    The godfather of intelligent design creationism, Phillip Johnson (a lawyer, not a scientist), said on a Christian radio talk show in 2003: “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” And here’s a 1996 quote from Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion.” This is as good as it gets, straight from their prophet’s mouth.

    C’mon, “bossmanham” – is this debate about science or religion? Do you deny the words of Johnson and Dembski?




  18.  

    Paul,

    Nice quote mining there, since, of course, that was Dembski clarifying his position to a Christian audience before telling them that, “The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

    There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That’s where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm. . . .” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/dembski-interviewed-over-design-of-life/).

    Now, I hope this was a mistake on your part, but it was pretty darn easy to find the context of that quote. I hope you aren’t just trying to be dishonest to push your agenda. I mean that’s what the ID guys do, right?.

    The other quote I have already addressed above. He is speaking as his worldview as a whole, and that without Christ all conclusions end up in contradiction. But he’s clear that ID alone doesn’t necessarily lead to the Christian God.

    “Well, of course they don’t…at least in public. It’s only when they are talking with other right-wing fundagelicals that they freely admit that the “intelligent designer” is the Creator God of Genesis. You don’t understand how propaganda works, do you?”

    Funny, if they don’t do it in public then how the heck do YOU know about it. Are you psychic? Did you do a scientific experiment to figure it out? Or are you letting your silly unscientific biases taint your conclusions? Hmm?

    ““bossmanham,” do you deny that intelligent design creationism Founder’s Conferences were held at religious (never scientific) venues such as Southern Methodist University in 1992 and the Bible Institute Of Los Angeles (now BIOLA University) in 1996? These are historical facts.”

    And? Are you saying something about those geographical areas suddenly make what they’re talking about on them wrong and unscientific? Sounds pretty fallacious to me. Perhaps you could give me the argument that proves this? I doubt it. WHERE you discuss scientific evidence says nothing about it’s voracity. It just happens that the people at Biola are more interested in uncovering the truth than other universities it seems to me.

    “Do you deny that the first sentence of the infamous Wedge Document is “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”? Does that sound like this debate is about science or religion?”

    I’m not sure what the wedge document has to do with whether ID is true or not. Do you deny that judging the truth of a proposition by its motives and origin is something called the GENETIC FALLACY? The wedge document wasn’t science, and isn’t necessarily adhered to by all ID proponents. And honestly, I don’t care anyway, since there does need to be something that happens in the scientific community to end this bad science that is so prevalent within it. It has nothing to do with the merits of the ID proponents’ ARGUMENTS.

    And the oh so incriminating quotes from Johnson, though I could pull agreement out of them (as I think that the neo-Darwinist position has all the marks of a virulent and dogmatic religion), also have nothing to do with the merits of ID arguments. That’s like saying because Stephen Hawking said something stupid like “philosophy is dead” that means that all the theories he’s had a hand in developing are false.

    Examine the arguments, not the red herrings you’re bringing up.




  19.  

    “bossmanham” wrote: “That’s the link to the list of ID peer reviewed articles.”

    Oh, goody – I see they’ve updated this pitiful attempt at scholarship since the last time I looked at it. Lessee…

    The first non-peer-reviewed but “peer-edited” article, by Steve Meyer, is in a book edited by…Steve Meyer! Can you even realize how lame that is?

    The second “article” was not peer-reviewed or in a peer-reviewed journal – it’s a summary of a paper Dembski and Marks gave at an electrical engineering (?) conference – and the article does not even contain the term “intelligent design.”

    The third article, by Meyer, was repudiated by the journal’s sponsoring organization for the fraud behind the article’s very publication – see the Wikipedia article “Sternberg peer review controversy” for details.

    The fifth article by the infamous Moonie, Jonathan Wells, is similarly bogus – “the journal, Rivista di Biologia, is utterly insignificant, and is prone to publishing articles that are clearly on the edge of scientific respectability. Its editor is (reportedly) a creationist and is affiliated with the Discovery Institute.” = More at http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/11/do-id-theorists-generate-data.html

    Yup, the list remains every bit as pathetic as it was the last time I looked at it. Thanks for the laugh.




  20.  

    “bossmanham” wrote: “And the oh so incriminating quotes from Johnson, though I could pull agreement out of them…”

    Great, go right ahead. “…a 1996 quote from Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion.” So this quote from the godfather of intelligent design creationism somehow proves that the debate is really about science and not about religion?

    What are you smoking, dude?




  21.  

    Paul,

    1. Please tell me how that disqualifies that article from being peer reviewed.

    2. And this prevents it from being peer reviewed how?

    3. It doesn’t matter what happened with the ideological bullcrap, exposed in Expelled, it was still peer reviewed.

    5. (You skipped 4; that’s called cherry picking) Please tell me how the “insignificance” of a journal keeps it from being peer reviewed. And who is it insignificant to? Only people you agree with? That isn’t a free exchange of ideas, that’s thought control.

    And *gasp* you’ve ignored the rest of the list. I think this confirms that you aren’t interested in truth, but in your own dogmatic religion, and you rely on dishonest rhetoric that, unsurprisingly, consists of mostly non sequiturs.

    And as it relates to Johnson, I will repeat myself: What he says has nothing to do with the merits of ID arguments. That’s like saying because Stephen Hawking said something stupid like “philosophy is dead” that means that all the theories he’s had a hand in developing are false.

    Examine the arguments, not the red herrings you’re bringing up.

    So, you’ve not argued that ID isn’t science. You’ve failed to show that peer review is necessary for something to be science. You’ve failed to show why the things that are available for peer review aren’t viable. You’ve given me at least three logical fallacies in your reasoning; the genetic fallacy, cherry picking, and ad hominem. And you’ve failed at being an honest and objective observer.

    Congrats, you’ve wasted your time.




  22.  

    “bossmanham” wrote: “1. Please tell me how that disqualifies that article from being peer reviewed.”

    Meyer “peer reviewed” Meyer. That doesn’t actually count as “peer review.” You really don’t understand this peer-review thing, do you?

    “bossmanham” continued: “2. And this prevents it from being peer reviewed how?”

    By some fellow creationist “peers,” true – but the whole thing was so bogus that the organization disowned its own journal’s publication of the article.

    And if you attach any credibility whatsoever to the execrable anti-science propaganda film “Expelled” you’ve really revealed where you’re coming from. How much is the Dishonesty Institute paying you?

    Folks, take a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com and determine if this debate is about science or religion.

    “bossmanham” continued: “5. Please tell me how the “insignificance” of a journal keeps it from being peer reviewed.”

    Publishing in “Earthworm Growers’ Journal” is not how one proves something is cutting edge science. Did you even look at the website I referred you to?

    “bossmanham” continued: “And *gasp* you’ve ignored the rest of the list.”

    Yeah, take a page from Behe’s playbook – my critique isn’t legitimate unless I critique each and every step of the process. I’m not biting.

    “bossmanham” continued: “So, you’ve not argued that ID isn’t science.”

    Yes, I have: IDC is not science, and neither is ID.

    The National Academy of Sciences argues that intelligent design creationism is not science but pseudoscience.

    The National Science Foundation argues that intelligent design creationism is not science but pseudoscience.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science argues that intelligent design creationism is not science but pseudoscience.

    How many more do you need? There’s a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design – it includes their position statements.

    And just for fun, here’s another Phillip Johnson quote: “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” – quoted by Michelangelo D’Agostino, In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley, Berkeley Science Research, 10, Spring 2006.




  23.  

    Wasn’t it just 85 years ago that William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow faced off in the Scopes Trial which dealt with creationism versus evolution? And didn’t Darrow win based on the fact that for the first three days there was no sun, and therefore no way to tell how long a “day” was. That a day without a sun to measure 24 hours could have been 48 hours, or 48 years, or 48 million years, or 500 million years?
    Even people who believe the bible is the true word of god, despite the Dead Sea Scrolls not being fully translated yet and so much of it just a “let’s say this happened here, okay?” sort of thing, will have to agree that without a sun there is no 24-hour day, and so there was no telling time. So six days are not necessarily six days. And an intelligent force might well start a ball rolling that over the course of a few hundred million years would wind up producing us. But then a more intelligent force would understand that “us” humans, are pretty much the bottom, not the top, of any barrel of life force. We’re strong but useless. We detract, not add, to the mosaic of life as a rule. We are the debris of creation, and will soon be gone so that real life, real living, can go on unimpeded by us.
    I think that’s important to recognize.
    And if there is a super force, a god or whatever people want to name him/her/it, then they should also recognize that we are the worst of creation. We are the accident. We offer little, take much, and think ourselves important. How foolish we are. If this whole thing is an intelligent design, obviously the intelligent designer was out having martinis when he/she decided to design the mistake called man.




  24.  

    “Peter G” noted: “If this whole thing is an intelligent design, obviously the intelligent designer was out having martinis when he/she decided to design the mistake called man.”

    Remember, bad / incompetent / malignant design is still “design.” And recall that (per intelligent design creationism dogma) all other creatures besides humans were also “designed.” So the malaria parasite, the tapeworm, the leprosy bacteria, the smallpox virus, assorted mosquitos, ticks, bedbugs, rattlesnakes, and so on were all designed by a loving god, er, “intelligent designer.” Mark Twain had an excellent essay on this a century ago – see Letter VII at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm




  25.  

    Peter G,

    ” despite the Dead Sea Scrolls not being fully translated yet and so much of it just a “let’s say this happened here, okay?” sort of thing”

    What in the world are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?

    Paul,

    “So the malaria parasite, the tapeworm, the leprosy bacteria, the smallpox virus, assorted mosquitos, ticks, bedbugs, rattlesnakes, and so on were all designed by a loving god, er, “intelligent designer.””

    Or those things could have evolved (not necessarily macro) to do harm to people after the fall.




  26.  
    Dereck

    Proponents of ID typically have issue with evolution when their realy problem is with abiogenesis which isn’t even described by evolution to begin with. There are certainly holes in the theory of evolution – missing fossils what have you so it has to be God right? There’s no other possible explaination. Of all the thousands upon thousands of religions man has followed over the years why is Christianity the right on and all the others wrong? Because your God is nicer than theirs? Because someone wrote a story about it? Why are the Gods from the old and new testiment who are supposed to the be the same god completely different literary characters? If you have trouble believing someone would just make a religion up explain Islam (part 3 of the abraham trilogy) or mormonism (part 2 b?) they had the same source material to work with as Christianity yet you must think that they are false no? Anyway cheers.




  27.  
    Dave

    The text under the video reads “DESPITE HIS RUN-IN WITH CANCER, HITCHENS STUCK TO HIS ATHEIST GUNS”…

    “Despite”? What does having cancer have to do with maintaining an atheistic stance? If he thinks it is true, why would his illness make him think it false? Would one say “Despite his run-in with cancer, Hitchens stuck to his pro-Iraq War guns…” ?




  28.  

    Paul wrote: “So the malaria parasite, the tapeworm, the leprosy bacteria, the smallpox virus, assorted mosquitos, ticks, bedbugs, rattlesnakes, and so on were all designed by a loving god, er, “intelligent designer.”

    And “bossmanham” replied “Or those things could have evolved (not necessarily macro) to do harm to people after the fall.”

    So prior to Adam and Eve’s little conversation with a talking snake, what exactly did the malaria parasite and the rattlesnake and all the other pests do for a living? Are you part of the Answers In Genesis ignoramuses who believe that until the fall, Tyrannosaurus Rex and sabertooth tigers used their large sharp teeth to only crack coconuts?




  29.  
    Teacup

    Creationism/ID equates religion since it requires a creator.

    Religion = Belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

    Faith = Belief that is not based on proof

    Science = Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.(see how it doesn’t say supernatural?)

    Reason = To form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

    Religion contains no science or reason, thus making creationism clearly and unmistakably false. I’ll go even further.

    Creationists argue that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.”

    As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

    A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

    It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

    Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.

    Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to “peer review.” This means that the proposed theory must be published in a “Legitimate” Scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

    Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of “good science” (creationism) vs. “bad science” (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation “scientists” are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

    It’s ridiculous that Christopher Hitchens must discuss such inherently wrong topics such as creationism in his waning days. But even now there is no one that poses a challenge.

    Continue to question.

    ‎”I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”. -Stephen Roberts




  30.  

    @Teacup,

    You defined “theory” for us. When has the disputed part of evolution – macroevolution from common ancestor – been REPEATEDLY OBSERVED?
    You said a theory explains the facts. Which facts does ID not explain? Be specific, give me 3 and explain why.
    You talked about fossils. Please prove that any of the organisms who are fossilised ever had children.
    You mentioned intermediate skulls. How do you KNOW they are intermediate between apes and humans? And why believe you when so many past “intermediate” skulls have been found, trumpeted as “intermediates”, and later quietly rejected?
    You mentioned dinos -> birds. Why is it that many scientists are now doubting this connection, how do you know they did evolve into birds, and how do you know that any fossils you might bring up in support of that contention had children?
    You mentioned “legitimate scientific journals”. Do you not realise that this commits the genetic fallacy? How exactly do logical fallacies strengthen the Darwinian position? Be specific.
    You mentioned creationists refusing peer review. Again, genetic fallacy, as well as argument from ignorance and unknown other cause. Maybe the peers reject them for no good reason or on ideological grounds. You have to think these things thru.
    You mentioned “fundamentalists”. Again, genetic fallacy. Further, ppl such as Dawkins easily qualify as “Darwinian fundamentalists”. I don’t see you dismissing them for that reason!
    You mention Hitchens – you think he MUST discuss such things? This is just stupid. Who’s forcing him at gunpoint to do so?
    And when has Hitch ever debated a creationist? (Calling ID theorists “creationists” is more evidence of your fundy ignorance. Strawmen are also logical fallacies.)

    Finally, the moronic comment from Stephen Roberts is more-than-adequately answered here: http://bit.ly/fVZfMK Do try again.

    Peace,
    Rhology




  31.  
    Roy

    “Or those things could have evolved (not necessarily macro) to do harm to people after the fall.”

    The fall of what?




  32.  

    Roy quoted “Or those things could have evolved (not necessarily macro) to do harm to people after the fall.” and then asked: “The fall of what?”

    According to the Genesis creation mythology, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were kicked out of the Garden, that was the “Fall of Man.” Unfortunately for their mythos, evolution and other sciences have shown that humans evolved from earlier species of hominids, and there was no Adam and Eve – which means there was no “Fall of Man” – which means Jesus died for a myth – a story that is simply not true.

    So some Christians are under eh delusion that they have to fight like demons to deny that evolution and biology and science are true or even exist, because evolution and biology and science prove that Adam and Eve never existed, Jesus died for nothing, the earth is far more than 6,000 years old, Noah and Noah’s Flood was another fairy tale, and lightning and diseases and earthquakes are not caused by angry gods but are perfectly explainable natural phenomena.

    And one of the hallmarks of evolution denialists is that they are perfectly willing to break one of their Ten Commandments and Lie For Jesus(TM) about evolution and biology and science, because they think they are defending their faith by making their scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance a virtue instead of a shameful inadequacy.




  33.  

    Paul,

    How precisely has modern science proven that Adam and Eve didn’t exist? What experiments were run to demonstrate that?
    It’s statements like this that convince us that scientismists are the willfully ignorant ones, willing to obfuscate and lie and ignore their abundant logical fallacies in order to prop up their terminally-ill hypothesis.

    Cheers,
    Rhology




  34.  

    Paul,

    I don’t think you can see through the vitriol you are spewing to really evaluate the claims of science. First, you have thrown out a few logical fallacies that BMH has caught. Second, I think you really misunderstand the main “bone of contention” that ID has with modern evolutionary biology. William Lane Craig laid it out pretty well in his debate with Dr. Ayala, especially Craig’s opening remarks and 1st rebuttal. The issue is not common descent, but the mechanism responsible for macro-evolutionary changes. Third, you appear to be over-stating the capabilities of science to scrutinize the truthfulness of a worldview. For example, you imply that science has invalidated creationism in general, and 6-day creationism in particular. There are some problems here: (1) sience does not have the capability to step outside of worldviews and adjudicate between them. Modern science is inextricably tied up with naturalism. How can it possibly be a neutral truth test for the validity of a theistic worldview when it is operating under naturalism? (2) You are basically proposing a evidentialist test for the truthfulness of truth. Unfortunately for your position, evidentialism has been shown to be a very poor test for truth. As such, scientific evidence is limited in testing worldviews. By this, I mean it is limited for testing ANY worldview (theistic, atheistic, pantheistic, etc.)

    Earlier on there was quite a bit of back and forth about peer-reviewed papers. Having published and reviewed a number of papers in major peer-reviewed journals, I would like to comment on this. The peer-review process is an excellent way of keeping the fluff out of journals. However, the peer-review process is inherently set to favor establishment theories. I generally think this is a good thing. Dominant theories are in place for a reason, many people find them persuasive. The problem is that, in my opinion, scientists tend to develop tunnel vision after a while. They spend so long in an area that they feel they know essentially all there is to know about the area. This can lead to people missing opportunities in their research because they don’t think to ask certain questions. In fact, this is precisely why multi-disciplinary approaches to collaborative scientific research are in vogue. Outsiders are more apt to question the cental dogma and ask unconventional questions that might normally not be asked. Incidentally, this is why I think ID is primarily coming from mathematicians and physical scientists. At any rate, because people get entrenched in their research, it can be difficult to shake up the tree so to speak. This is true in sub-fields, now imagine trying to do that in an entire field of science where people spend an entire life time working. For these reasons, I am not bothered by the low out-put on peer-reviewed publications, at least not right now anyway.




  35.  

    truthfulness of a worldview…not truthfulness of truth.




  36.  

    “The Chemist” …you imply that science has invalidated creationism in general, and 6-day creationism in particular.”

    Yes, science has invalidated creationism in general, and 6-day creationism in particular – that’s not an implication, but a fact. Young Earth Creationism is a joke – every single tenet of YECism has been proven wrong by science – in some cases for centuries. Haven’t you been paying attention?

    As a science denialist, how far back into the Dark Ages do you want to go? Do you still think that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are caused by an angry god? Do you still think that diseases are caused by an angry god? Do you still think that lightning is caused by an angry god? Does the sun revolve around the earth or vice versa? Science has provided you with answers to these questions – why do you ignore them?

    The sciences of astronomy and paleontology and geology and biology and many other branches of science have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that creationism is simply not the way things happened. Your support for a Bronze Age creation mythology is highly inappropriate for the 21st century. If nothing else, at least have the grace to not force your scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance on innocent school children.




  37.  

    Paul,
    You CLAIM modern science has disproved “every single tenet of YECism” but you haven’t SHOWN it. SHOW it.
    How would science discover whether God was indeed behind volcanic eruptions? Describe your experiment in detail along with its control so as to discover whether God was or was not behind a given eruption.
    Ditto with diseases and lightning.
    Why do you think the Chemist “ignores” these things? Maybe he disagrees, and maybe he has reasons beyond your sloganeering.
    Do you or the scientific establishment have access to a time machine so as to confirm that YEC is not the way it happenED? No? If not, how do you know that YEC is not the way it happened? Give your best 3 lines of evidence.
    Finally, you’re accusing a PhD in chemistry of scientific illiteracy. You’re a fundamentalist troll. Get over yourself.

    Peace,
    Rhology




  38.  

    Paul,

    You really need to stop the derision here. It makes you look a pedantic bully.

    “science literacy”
    I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and 21 peer-reviewed publications over the last 6 years. I think this pretty well sums up may capabilitie as a scientist. Although my Ph.D. is not in biology, my wife if finishing her PhD in population biology and ecology. I spend quite a bit of time discussing her reserach, the underlying theories involved, and the recent advancements in her field. Thus, I feel that I have a better than average understanding of the field, to the point that I will be a co-author on a paper to a biological journal. By the way, I am not YEC (at least not now), but I do understand the philosophy of science enough to know that it is wrong to exclude them from a place at the table.

    “Science denier”
    You have missed the argument here. I gave two reasons why scientific theories are inadequate for testing worldviews. Until you can establish evidentialsim as a valid test for the truthfulness of a worldview, you don’t have much traction here.

    You also seem to have conflated raw facts, which scientists seek to explain with theories, with the “facts” of the theories themselves. Let me give you an example. Albert Einsteing gave a theory to explain the low-temperature heat capacity data of crystalline materials. The theory worked pretty well, but not perfectly. Peter Debye gave a theory that fit the data better. Is it valid to say that Debye’s theory ignored the “fact” of Einstein’s theory? Yet, that is exactly what is going on when you claim that ID or YEC or whatever is proven wrong by evolutionary biology. They are competing ways of viewing the data, which ultimately gets back to whether or not evidentialism itself can distinguish the two (It can’t).

    “school children”
    Why bring this up? Why not just engage the arguments that were presented? Anyway, I am all for teaching naturalistic science to school children. I just think they need to also be taught the appropriate limits of science. Otherwise, we end up with people thinking science is the grand master arbitrator of truth.




  39.  

    This is precisely why those who go into the sciences should be required to take a few classes in philosophy. The chemist shows how invaluable it is to understand underlying assumptions in different theories. I think the lack of philosophical underpinnings in the sciences today is why it has become such a closed minded practice; at least or especially in the biological sciences.




  40.  

    “Rhology” wrote: “You CLAIM modern science has disproved “every single tenet of YECism” but you haven’t SHOWN it. SHOW it.”

    Good grief – read any encyclopedia or general science text written in the last 50 or 75 or 100 years. Subscribe to some actual science publications like “Science” or “Nature” – these publications SHOW more than you can apparently comprehend.

    “Rhology” continued: “How would science discover whether God was indeed behind volcanic eruptions?”

    Wow – if you actually think god is the cause of volcanic eruptions, I’m sure there’s no hope of convincing you otherwise. I’m apparently done here. Enjoy the theocracy.




  41.  

    Apparently so. I highly recommend you learn some basic philosophy Paul. It doesn’t take long to realize the evidentialism you espouse as a truth test is bankrupt, and consequently science is a poor arbitrator of the truthfullness of various worldviews.




  42.  
    aztexan

    I love how arrogant, bile-spewing wannabe badass Paul Burnett dries up and blows away like a fart in the wind when his blustery ad hominem fails to stand up to capable argumentation. Whoever you are, Burnett, you might want to lay low for a while; you’ve shown here in front of God and all His creation what a shallow, know-nothing pussy you are. Congrats!




  43.  
    Roy

    I can’t believe all you creationists are pretending that Paul Burnett has somehow lost some sort of argument concerning whether something called god is behind biological evolution (or geological history, or anything whatever). You posit a creator, which science is somehow supposed to take into consideration, and then challenge scientists to “prove” that your idea is not true.
    I could claim that the flying spaghetti monster is behind every evolutionary change and natural disaster, and then challenge you to “prove” me wrong. I could demand that you construct experiments and repeatable tests. Of course you could not. I could than claim that my flying spaghetti monster theory of creation and evolution is as likely as any other, because no one has disproved it.
    Learning “basic” philosophy is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with science. Gould was right when he said that science and God are two different magisteria. They use different languages and premises. They have nothing to say to one another, except to put up no trespassing signs.




  44.  

    Roy,

    So you are a philosophy of science denier? You do realize that there is an entire field of philosophy of science, right? The point is that the core of evidentialism, which is the primary method being used here to challenge ID and creationism, is flawed. If you want to use it as Paul was doing, then by all means go ahead and support it with argumentation.

    The FSM-based worldview has been addressed by Rhology (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/flying-spaghetti-monster.html). Basically, an internal test is critical to determining the truthfulness of a worldview. The FSM hypothesis turns out to be inconsistent and is nothing more than a lame attempt to paint Christians as intellectually inferior as non-theists.




  45.  

    By the way, Paul Burnett didn’t loose the argument so much as he didn’t even show up to the argument. When challenged he just left the combox. You think that makes him the victor?




  46.  
    Teacup

    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. Claiming truthfulness to an invisible being that is not and can not be proven, much like a flying teacup circling our solar system holds as much weight as the world ending in 2012. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on those that make these claims. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Someone can assert that they’ve gained magical powers from reading Dr Seuss and you would ask for proof would you not? Them asking you to prove them wrong does not make them have magical powers, but deluded and without proof.

    @Rhology Evolution is a fact. Evolution is simply the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. With an overwhelming amount of evidence, denial of this is quite the delusion. References are at the bottom of the page or next to the section.(since you had questions about macroevolution)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-9

    @Chemist and anyone else who reads. I don’t believe that anyone was trying to say that you or another was intellectually inferior. I apologize if I have to anyone or made them feel that way. It’s just that it’s hard to swallow all of this after 18 years of going to Pentecostal and Baptist churches. Having to listen to people talking of 800 year old men, talking snakes, world floods, virgin births, coming back from the dead, living inside a fish, etc. In one breath people would speak of love and then rape, slavery, torture, war, genocide, decapitation, mutilation, and love again. Then going to school and reading about wars, prejudices, and hate. It dawned on me that this could be in no way the product of any sort of creator. The world is too much of a mess and there’s no philosophy or rhetoric that will change my mind at this point, only evidence.

    Wherever your questions lead you, I hope that you all find happiness.

    “He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave”.
    -William Drummond




  47.  

    Whenever the FSM makes an appearance, you know the Darwinian side has lost.
    Also, it’s amazing how many ppl claim that science is their priority in the debate about truth and yet show so little understanding of the philosophy of science.

    Teacup said:
    –”Claiming truthfulness to an invisible being that is not and can not be proven”

    This is precisely what I mean.
    Tell you what – prove that evidence is a good way to discover truth. Once you do that, we can talk.

    –”much like a flying teacup circling our solar system holds as much weight as the world ending in 2012. ”

    See the post to which The Chemist referred you with respect to the FSM. It’s the same “argument”.
    In short, bring forth your arguments for the teacup. We’re ready with ours for the God of the Bible.

    –”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

    1) You mean like a guy rising from the dead?
    2) What’s your evidence for this assertion?

    –”What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ”

    You mean like this very statement? OK, done!

    –”. With an overwhelming amount of evidence, denial of this is quite the delusion”

    1) If you’d read carefully, nowhere did I deny your definition, but that’s disingenuous since it’s not the question here. You need to provide evidence for MACROevolution, that it HAS HAPPENED.
    2) You link to wikipedia, which references the Darwin Bible (aka Talkorigins), and yet the TalkOrigins page can’t even define “species” consistently. So…where’s your evidence again?
    3) The same article mentions that, say, one primrose became another…primrose. I’m confused – can you point me to someone who thinks that primroses can’t evolve into…primroses? If so, I’d love to see you debate them. If not, why cite it to me? Is it supposed to mean something?

    –”. Having to listen to people talking of 800 year old men, talking snakes, world floods, virgin births, coming back from the dead, living inside a fish, etc.”

    And your evidence that these things didn’t happen is what?
    Or is this just your faith, your religion, talking?

    –”people would speak of love and then rape, slavery, torture, war, genocide, decapitation, mutilation, and love again”

    1) You do realise that evolutionary history entails lots and lots of death, slavery, war, and genocide, right? Do you have some kind of moral problem with these? If so, how do you know it’s a true moral principle you’re espousing?
    2) Do you realise that the Bible RECORDS some events that God doesn’t approve of?

    –”He that will not reason is a bigot”

    You haven’t answered any of my questions yet. Hopefully you’ll prove yourself not to be a bigot.

    Peace,
    Rhology




  48.  
    Roy

    “Do you realise that the Bible RECORDS some events that God doesn’t approve of?”

    I like George Carlin’s question better: If God is all-powerful, can he make a stone so heavy that he himself can’t lift it?




  49.  
    Teacup

    @Rhology, I came to have a discussion and to make a point, not argue as it seems you want to do. My last post was in no way attacking anyone, I was just stating my point of view. You’re simply a troll(Paul is not). You ignore facts and claim things without evidence much like you say others do. It’s quite funny actually because you argue in circles much like the rest.

    You actually wrote about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Haha, it’s a fucking joke and it’s definitely on you. The FSM was created to show that creationism was as much science as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. To try and test the validity of a clear made joke is ridiculous. As is your logic.

    “prove that evidence is a good way to discover truth. Once you do that, we can talk.”

    Really? Come on, your just grasping at straws for any argument aren’t you? *yawn*, have you ever heard of the Judicial system. Innocent until proven guilty. You see that word proven. See you must “Prove” someone guilty and hold a trial to find, you guessed it, the truth. I could go on and on, but this was an easy one. Seriously? Alright, I’ll move on.

    “”much like a flying teacup circling our solar system holds as much weight as the world ending in 2012.” See the post to which The Chemist referred you with respect to the FSM. It’s the same “argument”. In short, bring forth your arguments for the teacup. We’re ready with ours for the God of the Bible.”

    See this is the ridiculousness of your logic. I made my point following that quote. It’s quite simple to see what I meant(maybe not in your case). That the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. You claim a god exists, I stated there could be a teacup in outer space, and neither can be proven. So then comes dismissal without evidence.

    “You need to provide evidence for MACROevolution, that it HAS HAPPENED.”

    Hmm… did you miss the entire section called “Misuse”. There were some good articles, it just seems you need an account on the sites to view the entire article. I didn’t know that was the case. My fault. Hm, how about the talkorigins page that you missed. Plenty of examples, enjoy. Don’t miss the references as there are Many examples.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

    “And your evidence that these things didn’t happen is what? Or is this just your faith, your religion, talking?”

    Dismissal without evidence. And well, the ridiculousness of it all. Much like I know that Smurfs don’t exist, “god” doesn’t exist.

    Do you think otherwise? Then prove it! …Oh, you can’t? Well then I’ll move on.

    “You do realise that evolutionary history entails lots and lots of death, slavery, war, and genocide, right? Do you have some kind of moral problem with these? ”

    Of course I do. Are you saying that you support genocide?

    “Do you realise that the Bible RECORDS some events that God doesn’t approve of?”

    The Bible records schizophrenic nonsense written in a means to control people. Oh, I see that it’s working. And you somehow know what “god” wants? Do you guys chat? Hang out in caves?

    So I’ve answered all your questions. What a waste of time that was.

    I would take a nicer approach, but when I feel attacked, I get a bit offensive. I might even have to blurt out things like your right wing pundits.

    What are you a fucking Nazi!? You support genocide? Slavery? War? Well I see who the bigot is.

    I’m definitely Not a bigot, because I don’t support those things. But someone does….




  50.  

    @Roy

    Seriously? That is the best you can come up with?

    Well in case you didn’t know, God cannot do things that are logically impossible. For example, God cannot make a square circle.

    @Teacup,

    I am not at all offended by being called scientific illiterate. I find it ironic that I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and I am called illiterate, but that is all. When you assert that evolution is a fact, you are either equivocating on the word evolution (in the context of Rhology is questioning) or you are conflating bare facts (raw data) with the theories used to explain the facts. In your comment to me, you said that only evidence will change your mind. But this is precisely the problem that I stated. Evidence is the result of interpreting bare facts through an appropriate context. In science, the context is methodological naturalism. How can you possibly derive non-naturalistic evidence if the interpretive grid is limited to naturalism? To be clear, I am not advocating that methodological naturalism be abandoned. I am simply pointing out that the scientific evidence often touted as supporting philosophical naturalism is automatically geared towards naturalism. Of course it will support philosophical naturalism. At best this is begging the question at hand. So, I don’t think you can merely say that you want evidence unless you are willing to recognize that evidence itself is necessarily tainted by the context through which it is interpreted.





Leave a Response

(required)


× seven = 35