It seems impossible for you to grasp that when @swamidass (or others) speak of God’s role in science … they are presenting their THEOLOGICAL stance on Science - - which is NOT the same as a Scientific stance on Science.
George, i was responding to @swamidass comments on natural selection. I was not discussing any theological stance.
Nope. By definition, as soon as you include God in a discussion of science - - it is no longer about the Science of Science!
It becomes the THEOLOGY of Science.
1 Like
George, My request to you would be that you at least try and understand a conversation before jumping in.
You are not making any sense.
You are the one who isn’t being coherent. Only a few posts ago you said to @swamidass that he might be right about ID folks being wrong.
If he IS correct about that, then what I said about you adopting a THEOLOGICAL stance on Science follows as night follows day.
Joshua thinks you will suddenly REALIZE this… and agree with him.
But I know you a little better. If you DID ever comprehend the implications of Joshua being right… you would ultimately conclude that Joshua can never be right on this issue.
Words such as might and if indicate probability… yes, its probable IDs hopes of detecting design are misplaced…That doesn’t make it a certainty. Its also probable they are right…
The point i made was that they have a right to try and they should even be encouraged to try.
And the point I was making is that if ID was fundamentally wrong … it would be because SCIENCE cannot still be science while discussing God’s role in it.
ID doesn’t try to prove God. It posits the cause of Design in life is Intelligence. And it Posits that said Intelligence can be detected through patterns in life… for example how information suddenly appears, how certain complex mechanisms cannot arise via natural selection and so on.
These kind of things already happen in Science. People posit that certain designs in nature indicate poor design and hence is proof that it did not involve an intelligence.So Science already is in the business f refuting an intelligence. So why not vice versa.
How disingenuous can you be?
The methodology does not change because YOU say they are not trying to prove God. It is the very same method of investigation.
I am not being disingenuous. I am treating them the same way i treat @swamidass. By taking their claims at face value as honest and sincere and learning more to find out if it makes sense.
And it does. They are formulating arguments based on information science, Biological complexity etc. These can be tested, and proven to be false. For example with respect to Irreducible complexity in bacterial flagellum, there are scientists who claim that they have have falsified it.
This is how science is supposed to work. Your argument would be valid if they proposed stuff that was unfalsifiable.
If what you said was all that ID implied, there would be no reason for ID to be prohibited from public schools.
Courts are not experts on science. I would assume that they went by “Expert testimonial”… And one thing that weighed against ID in the Dover trial was the lack of published papers in peer reviewed Journals at that time. They have been at work remedying this situation.
Its too early for ID to be in any text book… The idea is too nascent.They have a long way to go.
Courts ARE experts in human motivation. And ID s motivation is RELIGIOUS.
That’s a ridiculous and unfair statement.
Too funny. You actually believe the ID rhetoric thsy ID is not about God.
And yet look where the donations come from…
… and that even a giant compendium on ID to which @Agauger contributed doesn’t have a single chapter on why aliens may have designed human life!!!
Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” makes that claim. Darwin made that claim- that was his whole point, design without a designer. Jerry Coyne makes that claim.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education , pg. 92):
- High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
- Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
- Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
- Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
“You’ve reached the maximum number of replies a new user can create on their first day. Please wait 9 hours before trying again.”
I guess that is the only way you guys can “win”-> limit your opponents’ responses and then misrepresent what he says to make him waste his posts correcting the blatant dishonesty of his detractors.
That is interesting… and you can credit people like Richard Dawkins for that.
Perhaps that’s Gods sense of humour at work… 
Consider yourself fortunate!
-
if it were up to me, I would have suspended you immediately after you refused to retract your sweeping dismissal of all applications of Common Descent.
-
Most creationist sites wouldn’t let me post anything…let alone give me a chance to post more than once every day!
-
if I developed a way to let you post unlimited, but every post had to be approved by any moderator, would you prefer that @JoeG?
[There, @Ashwin_s, here is a creationist accusing me of dishonesty!]
Why weren’t there any NASA scientist lobbying for ID in the public schools… if all you really mean to discuss is DESIGN (as in the Prometheus scenario) where aliens brought DNA to the Earth?
Don’t living things have an inherent teleology as well? The purpose of the heart is to pump blood, etc.? I think the EES stresses this point a lot. Teleology sometimes is absolutely essential for the progression of science even from a completely methodologically naturalist perspective.
2 Likes