I can see why Paley's watch has been debunked (it is does not have any self replicating properties) and was never part of ID. But everything else still holds and are debunked only in the biased minds of ID opponents.
Science and Faith in Dialogue
- Thread starter Cisco Qid
- Start date
I have no scientific answer. I believe that the Creator or God did it based on scripture.
Do you think that makes it right? If not, what is your point?
But not necessarily true.
You are wanting to extrapolate from things contained in the universe to the universe itself. You might be right, but you might not. And QM shows that sometimes the "very simple and obvious statements" can indeed be wrong.
Again, we do not know that. Plenty of scientists think that that is not necessarily the case. The singularity at the Big Bang is not something that actually happened, it is just a point we cannot see past.
Sure, because you have an agenda you want to promote. You want the Kalam to be true, and it suits your purposes to assume these claims are true, when they are not.
This is, of course, the difference between science and religion - religion starts from the conclusion it wants and works back from there.
You might want to look in the mirror, Cisco. You are exactly describing what you are doing here.
Right. We have no experimentation and observation of God. What was it you said before?
"But if you're going to advocate science, you need to stick with what is observable."
The number of real scientists who take ID seriously is vanishingly small, despite a large proportion of them being Christian.
Behe's irreducible complexity has been trashed so often - even in a court of law. It is embarrassing he is still flogging that dead horse. This link is to BioLogos, a Christian site with the by-line "God's Word, God's World".
Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos
In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.
biologos.org
At least Dembski has had the sense to move on from his ridiculous explanatory filter.
It is telling that the Discovery Institute have closed their single lab, and they are now targeting church-goers rather than scientists.
Churches and Other Groups Co-Hosting “Science and Faith” Simulcast on Sunday, Sept. 21, 2014
On Sept. 21, 2014 more than 100 groups across the United States and Canada will be hosting the Science and Faith: Are They Really in Conflict? simulcast featuring Oxford University’s John Lennox…
www.discovery.org
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Are you saying that scripture has actual evidence that adds up rationally to God doing it, or merely that you believe in scripture on faith, meaning you just have to accept that it's true even though the evidence isn't sufficient?
Meaning that I believe the scripture based on faith and the evidence that it has provided to itself. I don't have to accept anything I just do. Just as you reject the scriptures even though the evidence isn't sufficient.
The number of scientists that accept evolution as the dominant theory is 97% while 87% percent believe that it happened by purely natural processes. That's not classified as vanishing small.
This was an attack by K. Applegate launched on June 2010 and refuted by Donald Ewert on November 2010. That is hardly a debunking.Behe's irreducible complexity has been trashed so often - even in a court of law. It is embarrassing he is still flogging that dead horse. This link is to BioLogos, a Christian site with the by-line "God's Word, God's World".
Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos
In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.
Ewert
This must be a miss link because I don't see Dembski moving on in your link but rather the opposite.
It is also telling that Secularists have dried up funding to DI research and then want to use that as a case in point argument.It is telling that the Discovery Institute have closed their single lab, and they are now targeting church-goers rather than scientists.
Churches and Other Groups Co-Hosting “Science and Faith” Simulcast on Sunday, Sept. 21, 2014
On Sept. 21, 2014 more than 100 groups across the United States and Canada will be hosting the Science and Faith: Are They Really in Conflict? simulcast featuring Oxford University’s John Lennox…
Last edited:
A perfectly valid statement.
Where do you get those figures?
If 87% is right, then the other 13% would include any theist who believes God guided evolution or that God merely set the process going, and left it at that. In fact, the implication here is that only 13% of scientists are theists of any stripe, which sounds unlikely.
From the link:
"The irreducible nature of this network has been demonstrated using knockout mice in which individual factors are eliminated (Fuxa and Skok). "
So IDists are still only considering the direct route, and ignoring an indirect route, eg scaffolding! This is just more flogging of the dead horse.
Sorry, the link was to show the explanatory filter has been trashed, not that he moved on. I thought that that was common knowledge! See here:
I am guessing you mean ID research? Were secularists ever funding it?
At least I look up the information or google once or twice without making stuff up.
The indirect routes that you're so proud of are derived from computer simulations without experimental observation which make them theoretical. And it has always been the case that experimentation and observation trump theory in science.
This seems like a simple retirement from ID not a renunciation of all his work. You keep jumping to all these assumptions.
ID has never had the funding or control over who gets the funding. It's too bad because they could do better. For instance, we would have known about the myth of "junk DNA" long before we did and many people wouldn't have had their tonsils removed every time a doctor went into the throat to perform minor surgery because were considered vestigial organs.
And yet when challenged, you cannot support the figures you seeming pulled out your backside...
So what? IC claims evolution of these systems is impossible. Speculation, computer simulations, whatever... if it shows a plausible route, IC is dead in the water.
To show a system is really IC, IDists have to show there is no possible evolutionary route, even indirect ones. They have never done that because it would be impossible to do even if true. So they do the next best thing, and quietly shift between different definitions in the hope their ignorant audience will not notice.
What definition of IC do you use?
Really? What have IDists done with Dembski's explanatory filter in the last 10 years?
IDists need to start doing science if they want science funding. It is as simple as that.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
How does scripture provide evidence to itself, and how is that relevant?
Then you're accepting not on the basis of evidence, because sufficient evidence should compel someone to believe. So it's [blind] faith then. What else could it be?
I reject scriptures *because* the evidence isn't sufficient, not *even though* the evidence is insufficient.
I googled the information but I do notice that you did not provide an alternative data set. Just ranting about the information even though you use such terms as ID proponents are vanishingly small.
They would not even have come up with alternative evolutionary routes if Behe hadn't introduced IC's. The new routes were in response to Behe and his IC concept. Your Darwinist group would have remained content with a straight and linear non-challenged RMNS rendition of evolution. So in this case, Behe was supposedly responsible for a whole new area of evolutionary knowledge that had been vacant for over a hundred years. And all this while giving Behe absolutely no credit for his contribution. Well, Behe still maintains that IC is a challenge to evolution and your fabricated computer simulations don't overwrite what we observe in the real IC world.
I don't have an IC definition, I just use whatever Behe says he uses. All I have is some paraphrase that an IC only works when all the pieces are in place.
They have rejected concepts put forth by materialists that life initially sprang from dead matter without intelligent design.
Atheistic prevalence in the field would never willingly allow IDists to move in to their world no matter how much science they did (and they are doing a lot). You have example after example of scientists as well as lay persons getting kicked out of their positions for taking a stand on ID. That does not sound like ID will ever get a fair shake to me.
Last edited:
Personally, I found the best evidence in Genesis and Exodus but an elaboration would be beyond the scope of this forum. But, then again, the word "evidence" is not the correct term. It is more of an anchoring.
Bingo!
It is what it is.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Here's the problem: I said,
and you said,
but deciding not on the basis of evidence means that you can accept **anything.** I believe, purely on blind faith, that I cam jump off a 10-story building and fly just by flapping my arms. Evidence - nor anything else - has any power to limit what you can believe by blind faith. That makes blind faith a **horrible** means for reaching a conclusion.
You are comparing faith in something that is clearly false to faith (which is trust) in a higher power. It is not wrong to have faith in a friend or a spouse and in fact faith in a spouse is what builds the relationship. Faith in a higher power is what pulls you trough the rough spots in life and it's that pulling through that make your faith stronger.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
But without evidence, with just blind faith, there's no way to tell what is false or what is a higher power. And, see below.
You have evidence that your trust in a friend or a spouse is founded. And, if you believe in someone with blind faith, with no evidence that your trust is founded, you can get differ very badly.
It's not an issue of having trust, it's an issue of that trust being blind, that is, having no evidence for it.
inertia
Super Member
The book looks like a good read.
I just finished a book by Hugh Ross entitled "Designed to the Core".
His book contains sixteen chapters with an appendix called - "Solar Elemental Abundance - Rocky Planet Configuration Link"
The book begins with large-scale cosmic structures including our own Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies and continues to progress to our milky way galaxy, and through our solar system including its planetary migration and the moon acting as an orbital stabilizer. He then continues with a detailed discussion about Earth's interior beginning with its core.
Solid references throughout
A sample from chapter 7, "The Milky Way Galaxy Interior", page 101:
"Astronomers would say our galaxy has aged well, thanks in part to its mass and to the small fraction of its mass attributable to stars. For any star within a galaxy to contain enough carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, iron, thorium, and uranium to make the existence of advanced life possible within its planetary system, at least two generations of stars must form, burn, and explode to enrich the gas clouds that form the next generation of stars.
Galaxies more massive than the MWG form stars early and aggressively, quickly exhausting their gas supply. Consequently, star formation ends before an adequate supply of the life-essential elements can be built up. Advanced life also needs elements as heavy as uranium and thorium. Only if uranium and thorium are extraordinarily abundant on a planet can both plate tectonics and a protective magnetosphere be sustained for a long time.
Galaxies less massive than the MWG form their stars so late and at such a slow rate that not enough of the heavier elements, such as iron, copper, zinc, thorium, and uranium, are manufactured. Only in a galaxy like the MWG does star formation begin soon enough and last long enough to produce all the elements essential for advanced life. "
________
.
The scriptures state that a person is saved by grace (unmerited gift) through faith and that even that faith is a gift from God (Ephesian 2:8). In order to receive a gift a person must be willing to accept it instead of rejecting it. That is essentially what atheists are doing which is rejecting God's free gift that God offers freely to all of mankind which includes forgiveness from past sins and a continual cleansing (1 John 1:7).
I use Project Steve to substantiate my claim that over 99% of biologists accept evolution. There are more people called Steve (and derivatives) who are biologists and who accept evolution, and signed the list, than there are persons of any name who are scientists in the loosest sense (dentists, engineers, etc.) who have signed the DI's dissent from Darwinism. About 1% of the population is c called Steve.
So again, where you you get your figures from? Right now it looks like you plucked them out of your backside.
Sure, Behe got it wrong. We credit the guys that get it right.
Behe is still flogging his dead horse.
We see IC in the sense that there are systems that fail if a component is removed. But we know that that is not an obstacle to evolution as there is good evidence of indirect routes.
And he chops and changes as is convenient.
Definition 1: A system is IC if it fails if a component is removed.
Definition 2: A system is IC if there is no evolutionary route, direct or not, to it.
We see systems that fail if a component is removed, and they are IC, by definition 1. Then we quietly swap to definition 2. If the system is IC then it cannot have evolved.
Which says nothing at all about indirect evolutionary routes.
Talk me through how the explanatory filter was used to do that. In the last ten years, of course.
Give me ten examples of scientists who got kicked out of their positions for taking a stand on ID.
Then we can see if that was because they were teaching it when they were paid to teach mainstream science, or because they were doing ID research. I am not aware of anyone sacked for the latter, and only a tiny number of the former.